Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

91

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 27, 2010, 11:37:22 AM »

Poor Kenneth doesn't want to stand by anything of substance, so I had to expunge his posts.

92

General / Re: Fuck Skunks

« on: July 26, 2010, 10:42:24 AM »

Hey to the OP, if you ever had the unlucky chance of running over a skunk (alive or recently dead) here's a tip of how to remove the smell: carpet fresh. I'm not shitting you, it works. But for getting sprayed, no clue.

93

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 25, 2010, 11:46:06 AM »

It has to do with the reality that you're for initiating force for things you think are okay, including the aforementioned activity.

It's not a matter of being okay or not to initial force. If you have taxes taken out of your ass, you have the moral right to get some of it back: period and end of story. Much like the reality that you and I must use govt roads even though both of us would probably prefer an alternative without coercion. The fact you continue to harp on such a non-issue as an attempt to evade the crux of my original post here which is there can be cases of non-voluntary exchange which in themselves are not coercive.  

You never answered the question (see the post) but instead danced around it.

Just like you danced around my original post.

There was no "ad hom card"...

Are you attacking the person or the argument of the person? You can't attack the person and then claim it refutes the argument. That is an AD HOMINEM fallacy, sorry, dude. You need to actually read the definitions of words before you can use them.

...there was no "fallacy," and it doesn't take an "ideologue" to point out the gun in the room that you're so happy to support.

Okay, again are you also "Full of bullshit" if you yourself use any publicly funded resource? By your logic, grandpa is an evil monster because he's drawing SSI. Or my sister is a villain because she's been on foodstamps. Your logic fails to account for this tautology that is created (that it is ALWAYS true regardless).

You missed your opportunity to show that you no longer support it, which you so obviously have not.  We're not talking about libertarian views "in the past."  That's why I asked if you still support it.  Straw man argument.

And I asked you how does it relate to my original post in this thread. This thread's argument is about the nature of social orders and how some are not voluntary, but not coercive. You seem to not grasp this thesis. And you continue to ignore it.

As for your silly canards, such as my "use" of public roads, the state seems to have me cornered, in such away that the statists always claim some fucking millionaire will, if by chance a miracle happens and a free society springs up.  Stop pretending to be so fucking brilliant.  You're just plain full of shit.

Again, your logic means that my sister, my mother, you, every person that I've known who's fallen on bad times (unemployed), and many other human beings probably encompassing most of the Western world (if not all of it) is a villain because they simply used a publicly funded resource. That is your logic's flaw, it is a tautology. It's always true, no false case may be derived. That means it's fucking useless for anything other than being a Sophist, which you are the text book definition of one. The fact you continue this bullshit ALL OR NOTHING ideologue crap is sad. It shows really that you don't want to consider the possibility there is such a case of a non-voluntary, but non-coercive social interaction. It bothers you so much so that you will pull every fallacy you can concoct to attempt to destroy any discourse on it.

Here's my answer to it. Your posts will be expunged from here on out. If you want to add to this discussion you will admit publicly your errors in your reasoning and apologize for it. Until then, you can just twitter away in other people's threads.

94

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 11:18:18 PM »

Also, Kenneth, if you drive the roads or any other public service which has been funded by taxes (theft), by your own logic you're full of bullshit, too. Please be careful when you setup your fallacious logic traps next time.

95

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 11:14:06 PM »

Also, I'd like to ask you, Kenneth, have you ever had non-libertarian views in the past? If so, then can I call you out on them and say you are equally false in your pretenses? If not, then what makes your accusations that I'm "full of bullshit" even valid or pertinent in any way? Other than you have some loathing of my person for some unnamed reason, which I care not to bother discussing publicly or privately.

96

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 11:10:14 PM »

Yes, it does have to do with this thread.  Go back to my first post.

Again, what does it have to do with my posts? I don't think your opinions really matter if you can't dovetail them into the crux of my opinions either affirming or rebutting mine. It seems you have this vice of trying to play the ad hom card without either knowing it or caring that you do it. Either way, it's silly, dude.

Thank you for admitting that you would have tax monies paid by others used for elective surgery in the form of genital mutilation. In summary, your "view" has not changed, and you're still full of shit.

And I only thought Ian was the ideologue here. Wow, just, wow. You seem to not grasp anything I posted because it doesn't fit in your view point, so you summarily use fallacy after fallacy to attack me and others who have similar views to my own. And at the same time some how alienate every human being on planet Earth that has had a change of heart or opinion in some part of their past. That takes quite a feat of cognitive dissonance for sure.  

97

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 10:22:02 PM »

I found the thread you claimed didn't exist.

I claimed that it didn't exist because I didn't remember it. You know, it's the Internet, not like my whole life where tons of really important shit was happening between then and now. Plus, the thread you referenced doesn't have anything to do with this thread, which shows that you're attempting an ad hom fallacy without knowing it (disparagement of character w/o qualifying how it refutes or invalidates an argument is an ad hom, sorry man).

Anyone who wants can see what a hypocrite you've been. All you have to do is say you no longer hold that position.

Lets take Google Search's definition of hypocrisy: If you accuse someone of hypocrisy, you mean that they pretend to have qualities, beliefs, or feelings that they do not really have.

Now, how am I being a hypocrite right now? Oh wait, I'm not, you're not even using the word right, thus you're being foolish in your choice of words. Have I changed my mind since that thread? Not really, because if the child's parent is paying taxes, then yes they should get services rendered for it. If that gets you pissy still, then you must hate me doubly so for taking all those Pell grants, too.

Plus, I'm still not seeing how it relates to this relates to this thread's content or the original post therein. Can you fill me in?

98

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 02:13:46 PM »

In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 

Indeed, that is true today.

It does not need to be true tomorrow.

One's man's DRO is another man's town elder.

99

General / Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole

« on: July 24, 2010, 02:13:01 PM »

Laetitia, I agree on the legalistic part of it, but I'm looking at it from the perspective that it was a shit headed thing to photocopy the text book and then sell it that copy with no residuals going to my friend who wrote it. I think that is a minimum to not be a shit head (a la take a penny, leave a penny attitude). What bothers me is that she focuses too much on the idea that law is immutable and not the extension of social interactions. That lack of nuance in her arguments is what made me side with the college kid even though I still find him a shit head.

100

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 02:05:53 PM »

Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.

Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?

Not really.  In every other situation where a person is being evicted from a residence they have a certain allowable time to make arrangements.

The personal relationships that usually end up with a kid getting kicked out of the house never follow any sort of rules.  If the kid wanted to whip out some legal-fu, she'd probably stand a chance of a magistrate (or arbitrator) supporting a right to stay until reasonable living arrangements can be made. 

The unfortunate reality of domestic squabbles is they tend to be passionate, and people share the common living areas.  This makes all the adjudication difficult and problematic, and the adjudicators have to make King Solomon-like decisions that are uncommonly dispensed elsewhere in the judicial system.  They may temporarily override the "rights" of the primary property owner in favor of a less-capable resident, because the verbal agreement suggested a long-term living arrangement was in place, and it was presumed to continue for an unspecified length of time --  then suddenly the owner rescinds, revokes, or dissolves the arrangement in haste, immediate compliance is not always possible, nor a reasonable expectation on the part of the owner.

The tl;dr version is "get bent, she can stay for ninety days, unless the cops have to keep coming back." 

In any case, the ruling of these situations needs to come from an impartial third party, which in most cases is going to be a government apparatus. 

Good answer.

101

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 12:45:03 PM »

I'm also for using other people's money to allow me to post this thread. Especially, Ian's.

Also, you haven't proven that I absolutely agreed with socialized medicine, and it has nothing to do with my current position in this thread. Can you focus or do I need to cast an Int buff on you?

102

General / Re: Red Dead Redemption Multiplayer, Anybody Playing?

« on: July 24, 2010, 12:39:31 PM »

I'm still waiting for money to get a PS3 so I can play FFXIV when it comes out in the Spring for it. So, maybe in August I'll plays with you, but until then...

103

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 12:33:49 PM »

Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.

Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?

104

General / Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

« on: July 24, 2010, 12:32:44 PM »

The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0

It doesn't mean that I supported socialized medicine. All I stated is that she should be able to transition. It seems you like grasping desperately for things to make others into villains. Also, it doesn't make any sense to reference an old ass thread as an argument against my current thread here and how I think currently. Again, you're playing desperate, if not fallacious, tactics. Please focus on the issue at hand.

105

The Show / Re: How the Islamic Political System ensures Good Governance?

« on: July 23, 2010, 11:38:12 AM »

Or rather it should be reduced to Tyranny by the priesthood or Theological Authoritarianism. It seems that if one studies history closely it's the codification of religious traditions that precede the codification of other traditions as law. Prior to this periods, there's either little or no significant political institutions existent.