greatest police badge number ever

[guerilla]

For example, what if someone believes that hurting others to get what they want is fine?

Do they also believe it's ok for others to hurt them to get what they want?

If not, then it isn't universal.

A: I want stuff. B: I can't feel what anyone else feels, therefore C: I will take it by any means to satisfy A.

Yes, this is how animals work.

Ultimately, where does absolute morality come from, and who decides what it is?

They come from convention, social norms, and consensual agreements.

Anyone can introduce a moral idea, the test is whether it can be universal and if it has utility. Something which benefits me by harming you is not universal. Something which benefits both of us by harming you but not me, is also not universal.

 

[p0ck3taces]

I really don't want to keep this wall of text stuff going. Let's try to really cut down the discussion either after your next post or before it. It can't be fun for anyone else to see this stuff on their screen.

Sure, even though some of the other off topic discussions I have more interest in and you didn't really get much of what I said.

Ok, so "How is this law applicable to me".

Look, here is the current paradigm, property is owned by nations/governing bodies. All property (except antartica) has been claimed by a sovereign nation. They get to keep claimed land as long as others consent to it or as long as they can defend it.

The land you are on now is owned by the US. The US allows you to rent the land, they have never given over full ownership. They claimed the land through force and then have since defended their claim. They defend the land you live on.

Property rights don't currently work as libertarian ideals would like them to. It's a mix of consent and force. Nations tend to be interested in owning as much land as they can get their hands on, so you have to be able to defend land you want to own. You don't believe in natural born rights, so why do you believe your sovereignty is something you are born with/promised.

It's pretty much a risk board game.

"How is this law applicable to me?"

It's applicable to you because you live on land owned by a sovereign nation. You have no sovereignty. You cannot defend your sovereignty. You cannot claim any land. You have no authority.

It doesn't matter if you think this isn't "just" or "right" or how things should work, this is the reality of your current situation.

Now if you want to discuss "should it be this way", please keep the two separate at least when responding. That being said, I don't know if I'm interested in getting into it with you on what system should be in place. There would be so much ground work we would have to lay before we could even start such a discussion.

 

[GerardWon]

Here is an idea. When you remove governments, you make military conquest a lot more difficult, not easier.

When governments fight, they conquer the other army and government. They conquer a taxing system.

No government, no taxing system, means individually conquering every single person in a country. That's damn near impossible I think.

I understand your point.

I do wonder if an aggressive dictatorship would grasp the concept that a land mass the size of the US with 300 million anarchists living happy productive lives would be more difficult to conquer. It truly is an unknown.

There will always be violence, but IMO how we respond to it should always be up for discussion, particularly how we handle it.

So long as we're not 'fiddling while Rome burns.'

 

[guerilla]

I understand your point.

That's pretty cool.

I do wonder if an aggressive dictatorship would grasp the concept that a land mass the size of the US with 300 million anarchists living happy productive lives would be more difficult to conquer. It truly is an unknown.

When was the last time someone invaded the US? You've got 300 million armed, friend chicken eating, dixie line dancing, sushi dinner making, playboy magazine subscribing cowboys (and some damn yankees).

No one wants to invade the US. And it has nothing to do with the US military. The US military are the foreign legions.

So long as we're not 'fiddling while Rome burns.'

People in tech tend to have a shitty view of humans. It may be accurate, but its shitty. You need to come spend a month where I live. You'll realize (if you don't already know) that people of mixed religions, races etc can live among each other without a lot of trouble.

In this regard, the US is bad, because it's the most violent of the western nations. There is a lot of aggression, which I think is related to, or feeds to/from the American obsession with the state/military/exceptionalism.

In other countries, the jingoism and nationalism just isn't such a big deal. In Canada, one day a year we go, "Oh yeah, we're Canada. It's a great place." then we go back to whatever else we were doing. There is very little flag waving. Very little overt nationalism. I suspect many other smaller countries are like this.

 

[guerilla]

Sure, even though some of the other off topic discussions I have more interest in and you didn't really get much of what I said.

Fair enough. I have a limited amount of time, and sometimes on WF it feels like an unlimited number of people want me to reply to them.

Property rights don't currently work as libertarian ideals would like them to.

If they did, I wouldn't have much to post about.

You don't believe in natural born rights, so why do you believe your sovereignty is something you are born with/promised.

I never said anything about me being sovereign. Not that I remember (not interested in re-reading thread tbh).

There is this perception I am making some claim. I am not. I am simply asking for proof of why the current situation involves me.

If you say it's just violence, I agree with you. Conversation over.

You have no authority.

If you believe that all authority comes out of violence, then you're correct.

If you believe that authority doesn't come from violence (that the only legitimate authority has to come from something like property rights) then you are incorrect.

Your belief system works with "Rape is ok". Mine does not. Your belief system works with "Murder and theft are ok.". Mine does not.

Now you can say, "this is the way the world is, governments rape, and kill and steal all the time".

And I would tend to agree with you.

But (1) they don't advertise such overt powers. They claim they adhere to principles of democracy and justice. They give a man his day in court before they lock him away for 20 years. At the very least, they maintain the pretense of the charade.

And (2), is that the world you want to live in?

It doesn't matter if you think this isn't "just" or "right" or how things should work, this is the reality of your current situation.

I never claimed otherwise.

Now if you want to discuss "should it be this way", please keep the two separate at least when responding.

Look, this thread is rife with value judgments. People like what the guys in the OP did. People hate the guys in the OP.

Values, morals, ethics are woven into every social discussion.

I have tried not to promote my values. I have instead tried to promote the facts, and ask people for the facts which support their values. Typically, hyper-emotional respondents don't operate from facts, and so cannot supply them to substantiate their emotions. Most people go through their entire lives like this. They simply aren't rational at all.

And all of us are susceptible to it. Even I, as rational and logical as I try to be, fall into pits and traps of emotion at times.

I agree with your claim that the world is setup that way. I agree with your claim that authority is derived from violence.

If you want to end the discussion there, I am happy to do so.

If you want to talk about how things should be, I'd suggest that maybe an ethical social paradigm would suit us better. But neither you or I have the power to make that call. As long as humans believe that the cop in the suit is Andy Griffiths and not an imperial stormtrooper, we'll continue to get a society where the top lives off the bottom (and increasingly so).

And after many years of debating and thinking about this stuff, I am actually ok with it. I won't believe the delusion, but I could use it to get myself a lot of loot and power over other people.

And most people would be ok with it, except the libertarians and anarchists. But who cares anyway. They don't understand how things are.

Btw, I am curious about why you care about Bitcoin so much, when you don't have libertarian values? Is it just a good investment/speculation vehicle for you?

 

[Jokerr]

It's still theft. Just because you have people trying to benefit from the current coercive system doesn't change the fact that it is by definition theft. There will always be people vying for control over the gun in the room so as to point it at someone else and away from themselves.

Claiming that taxation is theft assumes that property rights actually exist.

 

[346media]

this thread feels like work

 

[guerilla]

Claiming that taxation is theft assumes that property rights actually exist.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as theft?

If so, where do you live? :338:

 

[Jokerr]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as theft?

If so, where do you live? :338:

I'm saying they don't exist per se, we make them up. Thus, the claim that taxation is theft is based on the assumption that you can prove you're the rightful owner. Can you?

 

[guerilla]

I'm saying they don't exist per se, we make them up. Thus, the claim that taxation is theft is based on the assumption that you can prove you're the rightful owner. Can you?

This sounds a bit like a non sequitur to me.

Property rights are conventions we adopt to reduce transaction costs (conflict) between actors in a social context.

Yes, they are ideas. Like language is an idea we use for communication. It's a mental construct we create.

The difference between an arbitrary mental construct (a delusion) like say, government, and property rights, is that property rights is rooted in the fundamental nature of reality, and that is scarcity.

We can acknowledge that time and space are scarce. That is you and I cannot stand inside one another on the same spot at the same time. Therefore, only one of us can be on that spot at a time. The question of who is a matter of property rights.

There are a few ideas for how original appropriation (the taking of property from an unowned state in nature) occurs, I prefer Lockean homesteading theory because it's consistent and it again, reduces transaction costs (less conflict).

So if you deny property rights exist, what's your solution to solving conflicts over use?

If you deny I am the owner of something, can you make a better (higher) claim for yourself or for someone else?

Property is an essential idea, regardless of what flavor of it you adopt, because without it, we have endless conflict and misery. If you think about every violent conflict in the world, it's a case of someone denying or violating someone elses property.

 

[Jokerr]

This sounds a bit like a non sequitur to me.

Property rights are conventions we adopt to reduce transaction costs (conflict) between actors in a social context.

Yes, they are ideas. Like language is an idea we use for communication. It's a mental construct we create.

The difference between an arbitrary mental construct (a delusion) like say, government, and property rights, is that property rights is rooted in the fundamental nature of reality, and that is scarcity.

We can acknowledge that time and space are scarce. That is you and I cannot stand inside one another on the same spot at the same time. Therefore, only one of us can be on that spot at a time. The question of who is a matter of property rights.

There are a few ideas for how original appropriation (the taking of property from an unowned state in nature) occurs, I prefer Lockean homesteading theory because it's consistent and it again, reduces transaction costs (less conflict).

So if you deny property rights exist, what's your solution to solving conflicts over use?

If you deny I am the owner of something, can you make a better (higher) claim for yourself or for someone else?

Property is an essential idea, regardless of what flavor of it you adopt, because without it, we have endless conflict and misery. If you think about every violent conflict in the world, it's a case of someone denying or violating someone elses property.

I deny they exist per se, just like you do when you state they're an idea. They're an idea just like the color red is an idea. But the color red doesn't exist either. It's a concept.

My solution does not matter because I essentially agree with you. But it's a utilitarian argument and I merely disagree with the statement that taxation is theft because for it to be theft you'd have to prove you're the rightful owner.

 

[guerilla]

I deny they exist per se, just like you do when you state they're an idea. They're an idea just like the color red is an idea. But the color red doesn't exist either. It's a concept.

So you'd also deny that language exists then. And mathematics. etc.

My solution does not matter because I essentially agree with you. But it's a utilitarian argument and I merely disagree with the statement that taxation is theft because for it to be theft you'd have to prove you're the rightful owner.

This is the non sequitur.

You either believe there is property or not. If you do, then there is an owner or an unowned resource.

How we determine that isn't hard and fast, but it isn't impossible to do.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds very confusing to me.

 

[Jokerr]

So you'd also deny that language exists then. And mathematics. etc.


This is the non sequitur.

You either believe there is property or not. If you do, then there is an owner or an unowned resource.

How we determine that isn't hard and fast, but it isn't impossible to do.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds very confusing to me.

I believe there are property rights, just like I believe there are colors, i.e. in the sense that they're conceptual. Same with language and mathematics. The latter is "just" a method we use to describe reality. E.g. the number 2 does not exist in itself, but 2 apples do exist.

My belief that there is property is based on the current legal framework which is obviously utilitarian in nature. However, it doesn't have to be that way, and I'm sure there are people who don't agree with the concept of property rights. How do you legitimize your ownership to someone who doesn't believe in property rights?

 

[guerilla]

My belief that there is property is based on the current legal framework which is obviously utilitarian in nature.

I like to think I am a smart guy, and I have no idea what this sentence means.

However, it doesn't have to be that way, and I'm sure there are people who don't agree with the concept of property rights.

People can agree or disagree with property rights all they want, but by disagreeing, they are demonstrating self ownership, which makes their disagreement, a performative contradiction.

Don't say "I deny there are property rights, for without property, there is no I"

How do you legitimize your ownership to someone who doesn't believe in property rights?

They are commies and should all be executed.

Seriously though, who cares? People believe all sorts of batshit things. I am only concerned with bettering my mind. I can't make the human race better, and trying to do so seems like it's a miserable, thankless, impossible task to me.

 

[Jokerr]

I like to think I am a smart guy, and I have no idea what this sentence means.

My bad. OK, I believe there are property rights in the sense that we've decided that they're beneficial to society. The same way we've decided that taxation is beneficial to society (I know you'd disagree with this, but that's another debate ).

People can agree or disagree with property rights all they want, but by disagreeing, they are demonstrating self ownership, which makes their disagreement, a performative contradiction.

Don't say "I deny there are property rights, for without property, there is no I"

I don't see how disagreeing leads to self ownership? Is it the fact that we're conscious beings?

They are commies and should all be executed.

Seriously though, who cares? People believe all sorts of batshit things. I am only concerned with bettering my mind. I can't make the human race better, and trying to do so seems like it's a miserable, thankless, impossible task to me.

Something that's not righfully owned, can not be stolen. If you can not legitimize ownership, I don't see how that's rightfully yours.

 

[guerilla]

My bad. OK, I believe there are property rights in the sense that we've decided that they're beneficial to society. The same way we've decided that taxation is beneficial to society (I know you'd disagree with this, but that's another debate ).

Actually, I think that is the entire debate. I can round up 20 guys on this forum who agree that taxation is theft. None of us were asked if "WE" wanted to be taxed or if it was beneficial.

All of us however demonstrate some grasp of property rights, simply by acting.

It's a huge leap to take property rights, and conflate them with taxes, on any level.

I don't see how disagreeing leads to self ownership? Is it the fact that we're conscious beings?

"I am not alive". Does that sense to you?

"I don't control myself" Does that make sense to you?

Something that's not righfully owned, can not be stolen. If you can not legitimize ownership, I don't see how that's rightfully yours.

What does "rightfully" mean?

 

[Jokerr]

Actually, I think that is the entire debate. I can round up 20 guys on this forum who agree that taxation is theft. None of us were asked if "WE" wanted to be taxed or if it was beneficial.

All of us however demonstrate some grasp of property rights, simply by acting.

It's a huge leap to take property rights, and conflate them with taxes, on any level.

If you can't prove property rights exist, then I don't see how you can claim that anything is theft.

"I am not alive". Does that sense to you?

"I don't control myself" Does that make sense to you?

Yup, but I don't see how self ownership follows. At most, it proves that you're conscious.

What does "rightfully" mean?

Morally.

 

[guerilla]

If you can't prove property rights exist, then I don't see how you can claim that anything is theft.

Back to this again...

So you're saying, property rights don't exist, colors don't exist, languages, mathematics and theft (among many other things) do not exist.

Guess what, your argument doesn't exist.

See, I can be mentally retarded too!

Yup, but I don't see how self ownership follows. At most, it proves that you're conscious.

Apparently logic also does not exist.

Morally.

Morals don't exist, remember?

You're either really simple, really dumb, or an epic troll.

 

[hellblazer]

mentally retarded...

really dumb...

You can save a lot of time talking to guerilla by understanding that eventually, every discussion ends this way.

And why is that the case?

Because:

I like to think I am a smart guy...

 

[jryan21]

I believe there are property rights, just like I believe there are colors, i.e. in the sense that they're conceptual. Same with language and mathematics. The latter is "just" a method we use to describe reality. E.g. the number 2 does not exist in itself, but 2 apples do exist.

...

The common definition of natural numbers started with:
Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are some mathematicians who don't accept that definition, mainly because they reject the Axiom of Choice. These people can get out of having to do all the math that everyone else does by saying if ZFC set theory, along with the above definition is proven to be invalid, then all the math we have ever known is shit. They spend most of their time doing exotic geometry.