Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Whatever you say, secularmerlin will hear something else entirely.It gets tiresome very fast.
I'm familiar with secularmerlin's tact. But like everyone, I initially offer the courtesy of having the benefit of my doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So children should not be allowed to starve unless no one feels like feeding them in which case they should in fact starve?
Is that what I said, or are you attempting to pigeonhole my response to that of non-coerced participation being tacit promotion of starvation? As I've said, no one should starve. I'm just not willing to cosign any coercive measures which would service that end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This has to be pointed out so that Americans do not elect the next Hitler.
What was Donald Trump's body count as President compared to his predecessor(s)?
Created:
Posted in:
Why is discussion on Trump still so prominent despite his not holding a public office in the last few years? Can you tell me about what Obama, the W, not to mention the Clintons have been up to? I suppose none of that matters, but neither does this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let us say no one volunteers. Should children then starve?Assuming your answer is no children should not starve what is now your answer?
Children shouldn't starve. No one should starve. Whether they do is subject to both their own devices and the devices of others. I would also put forward that no one should be coerced into submitting their time, labor or resources to anyone. Would I maintain this position whether more or fewer persons starved? Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Subjective and objective perspectives can both be logically derived.
Not "objective" perspectives.
I believe you're thinking about the word pragmatic.
Pragmatic may apply as well, but I'm primarily thinking along the lines of logic.
When choosing what material, I need to boil water I must check its objective properties so that it will not melt at the boiling temperature of water.
The boiling point of water is not "objective"; it's an abstract representation of a consistent logic.
When choosing a present for my friend I will not check the objective truth for the most beautiful color but instead their subjective favorite.
Why would one attempt to quantify qualia?
I hope these clearly demonstrate that both objectivity and subjectivity are logical but must be chosen practically given the circumstances.
Quanta =/= Objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you believe that from a subjective or objective viewpoint, or do you believe that as a universal truth?
I believe it to be a logical necessity.
My more elaborate comments are 23 and 28.
I know. I read through the responses before posting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"
Whoever volunteers.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh I get it now. Functionally speaking, the same legal protections are given to non-persons as are to persons, so the distinction between the two is irrelevant when discussing legal protections.
Yes, exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
A few questions to ponder and discuss:
- Does the past exist?
- Does the future exist?
- Do abstractions exist?
- Do thoughts exist?
- If something will never be observed, does it exist?
- If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
These are questions materialists can't answer with consistency. Case in point: I've asked several self-described and presumed materialists to prove that the number, "2," exists in concordance with their materialist standards. I've been met with, at best, haphazard attempts to substantiate how the existent can interact with the nonexistent without any codependence. This haphazardry is only exacerbated by the fact that ALL PHYSICAL LAWS must necessarily be mathematically proven. The issue here is that mathematics is an abstract. So how does that which exists (i.e. the "physical") depend on that which allegedly doesn't exist (i.e. the abstract or the immaterial)? Of course this is then compounded with pointless attempts at creating distinctions between that which is "only inside one's head" and that which isn't. I refer to it as pointless because the materialists in my experience have repeatedly failed to hearken back to their maintained standards--i.e. the scientific method--and provide sufficient controls for their alleged observations of that which is "independent of their minds" and that which isn't. Not only do they not bear the capacity to experience such an observation, but also they WOULD NOT be able to rationalize it. The only solution to materialist inconsistency, at least according to my own satisfaction, is to proffer that everything exists and nothing does not exist. So with that in mind, I will answer your questions:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. Yes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're on the right track. My prevailing argument is a contention against those who argue that abortion isn't murder because the zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a "person"--this obviously extends beyond the concept of "legal personhood,"--while simultaneously sustaining that a lake should be. Since persona ficta is a mere subject of legislation, then the content which legitimizes the exclusion of human beings at the first phase of their development must be "personal preference." In other words, there's no consistency in including lakes among legal persons and excluding zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You should really read the material you cite:
Either way, the cost-cutting venture that the company has enacted to save $1.5 to $1.8 billion could end up costing them somewhere near $1.9 billion. We are unsure how this works or why the company would want to purge these titles to save money when they also lose a staggering amount.Then again, we would imagine that this is a proverbial drop in the bucket for Disney, as they can easily make $2 billion back between all the media companies under the umbrella of the House of Mouse.
How is this much different from what I just stated? (We even used the same idiom--i.e. "drop in the bucket.") Not to mention, this source doesn't inform on how Disney's "Woke" agenda is costing them money; only how a misguided cost-cutting move backfired.
Why? Just to hire a “diverse” group of normal actors to check the SJW/PC boxes!?! Pure insanity. And no Prince Charming per the Hispanic actress playing SNOW WHITE! Gal Gadot is regretting her decision to be in this movie, that’s for sure. It’s all about feminism and making a girl boss out of the lead character. It will flop as all the other movies have that cost Disney $900M.
Then let Disney suffer the consequences of its decisions. Why are you so hung up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I apologize, but my time is limited, so I will try to address the responses I believe are the most imperative.
Feel free to respond at your leisure.
much of this is based upon my understanding of the world and is not necessarily verifiable by a research institute that I can cite; therefore, if you disagree that is fine, but I don't believe either of us can present any more evidence to suggest our claims as evident.
We should not let disagreement be misconstrued as a "flaw."
I don't believe individuals who have a day job and were counting on a private contracting military to defend them that just opt out on a whim would be something recoverable for a nation if being invaded.
How often do you imagine a nation which has enjoyed a long period of peace being invaded? You're grasping at worst case scenarios.
The private contractors would no longer have business
Exactly. So this would present an incentive for the private contractors to honor their contracts, less they wish to go out of business. Another incentive is that if they're consumers die, there's no one around to pay them.
I believe this is too unstable to exist long term since all it would take is one generation to slip up on their values.
And this can simply be remedied by another generation's living up to their values.
Perhaps the military could just ramp up the price right before war to an extortious amount that would leave the civilians with pennies in order to save their lives and then the economy would be ruined and it's a free market, so it's all legal.
What is an "extortious" amount, especially for someone who's willing to risk their person, even their lives, to resolve your conflict?
What happens if a person within society is a tourist and is not engaging in active trade and commerce and therefore not considered a citizen, are they not held accountable for their actions, what will the foreigner policy be? Someone could easily take advantage by continuing to postpone the consequences of their actions indefinitely, leading to a society where individuals can do whatever they want without ever being held accountable for their actions. Someone could easily decide that there is injustice within the opposing party even though they are the offender and can dispute the legality of unanimous or majority vote since people are aware majority vote and unanimous vote do not justify actions.
If a national has a dispute with a foreigner, then they both can seek mediation in the event of a dispute. (I would assume that a foreigner's money is as good as that of anyone else.) And I do not subscribe to argument ad populum--i.e. appeal to consensus. The unanimous and/or majoritarian decision is merely a means to resolve a dispute if the involved parties subscribe.
The intensity of the connection or similarity between you and an individual is subjective but the number of connections you relate between is objective and countable. Therefore, the relationship between you and an individual or you and a nation has both subjective and objective aspects.
Explain.
With a nation that is grouped together by a belief in individual sovereignty they are connected by one belief and the intensity is how they feel for that belief. for a nation that does not allow individual sovereignty but implements individual rights under a collectivist government
There are no individual rights without individual sovereignty. That which you characterize as individual rights are merely privileges dispensed by a collectivist State.
I believe that the summation among the values of a collectivist nation is stronger than the single value held by a society associated by individualism.
Because?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Wrong. It’s about money and making it, not burning it via piss poor business decisions. That’s why many people are talking about it. Not just me.
Disney is reported to be worth about $160 billion. $900 million is about 0.6% of their net worth--i.e. a drop in the bucket. Whatever they lose in their "woke" re-imaginations, they can make up with their other properties. And I suspect they wouldn't mind losing more if it means pedaling their ideas.
I'm not the one concerned with Ariel or Snow White. I couldn't care less. Why do you?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Why is Disney, among other companies choosing the Woke Agenda, so damn willing to LOSE MONEY (i.e. PROFITS) over the ideological woke culture that does NOTHING to advance anything for anyone!?!Discuss!
Because Disney is a witch coven that's attempting to ingratiate paganism with the populace, particularly the so-called, "Black," demographic. You are thinking far too small. $900 million is but a drop in the bucket for Disney, especially in its attempt to propagate its Luciferian practices and rituals, as well as enlist liberal so-called "Black" women to its cause.
Now taking off the tin-foil hat, in a less charged context, one shouldn't object to changes in stories that are owned by Disney. Disney can do whatever it wants with its properties. The fact that you overly concern yourself with these changes speaks more to your issues, than it does with Disney's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yes, that is accurate and does not contradict what I said above. Meaning is subjective to individuals, but freedom is not meaningful in itself.
You are contradicting your statement in the very same statement.
I have also explained that in an individualistic society the greatest sovereignty is the individual and so the greatest thing to live for is life and life will die eventually.
Why would a society that is both practiced and applied "in life" be concerned with that which happens "after life"?
Now to readdress my statement, a government that is unified and meaning driven is more powerful than a society that lacks uniformity and meaning. A society that is collectivist or unified under something that is lasting, and meaningful past life will inevitably be more driven to accomplish their goals and determined to protect their society
That once again is subject to individual evaluation.
and nation unlike the military, which you describe is only seeking money. Do you think that a nation such as the Nazis were more powerful than an equal sized private contracting military that is only seeking their next paycheck?
When did this become a subject of "power"?
The world isn't black and white, it's more complex than that.
As far as this subject is concerned, yes it is. One either subscribes to individual autonomy or one doesn't. And if one cannot maintain any consistency in his or her subscription, then one should abandon the illusion.
Do you see there being a problem with having a sizable percentage of the population who cannot afford their own education, and no one is responsible for them but themselves?
Why wouldn't a sizeable percentage of the population be able to afford its own education?
What do you think this will do to the economy if much of the population isn't educated?
Exactly. So I ask again: why wouldn't a sizeable percentage of the population be able to afford its own education?
It will lead back to the original problem I mentioned before, which is other nations' educations and technologies will grow and outsize an anarchist society, leading to a weakness that could be exploited by another nation invading.
This inference extends a non-sequitur--an (anarchist) society incapable of educating itself. You have not substantiated this.
I'm trying to explain how a voluntary agreement is not stable enough to maintain itself long-term, and it will either crumble or be destroyed.
Voluntary agreements can only crumble or be destroyed by involuntary association--e.g. government.
The most concerning part of your description of a utopian society to me is the military being a private contractor.
Where did I argue for "utopia"?
What happens if an individual murders someone and then says they don't want a jury? Then they don't ever agree to what the other person says, and they can't ever decide because it's a 1 to 1 vote.
They both can leave the "tiebreaker" to the mediator.
This would inevitably lead to bias juries and injustice. No one would fight for an injustice society, especially after being taken advantage of in such a way.
How?
I see this as a way for individuals who have money to harshly penalize those who don't,
Why would this be an issue if the involve parties can opt in and opt out?
and for ones who have money to escape penalties,
A poor reputation isn't good for business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What sort of consequences in who judges with consequence will be?
I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps you can rephrase it?
How is there any certainty for protection if the military is responsible for its own funding?
There is no certainty for protection, with or without government.
What would happen if society decided they didn't feel like they needed a military and a future generation because there's been peace for so long?
Then, I suppose, they would not employ the services of a private military.
What would happen if the majority of people stopped funding the military, will there be any sort of requirement for funding, and who judges what is the requirement for funding?
No, there would be no requirement.
I think this is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Not everything can just be "hashed out" between the parties involved.
Why not?
What happens if there is no resolution between the involved parties who makes the final decision?
There will be a resolution regardless. It'll either be a unanimous or majoritarian. The dissenters can acquiesce to the unanimous or majoritarian decision, or they can opt out. That is a resolution in and of itself.
So, citizenship would be sort of like a consumer-based policy?
Yes.
If people within the society do not purchase goods, they do not need to opt into the society,
No. Individuals can decide whether or not they intend to provide finance, time, or labor to public goods. If they do not intend to consume one or more public goods, they can opt out. In turn, those who opt out can be refused service.
For how long can a dispute be ongoing?
That is a subject for the individuals involved.
Is it possible for an individual to just keep pushing on a dispute indefinitely in essence past their lifetime and no consequences ever inflicted upon them?
"Inflicted"? Yes, I suppose it's possible. But again, that would be a subject for the individuals involved.
If not, who judges this, and what is the overarching law that governs this aspect of society?
You mean, who acts as the government? As I've already stated, disputes and conflicts are subject to individual discretion and/or dispute resolution organizations.
What happens if one of the members of the dispute decides it's become unreasonable, and they no longer want to postpone the resolution because they need money to resolve the probleIf there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.m from the other person otherwise, they will go bankrupt and the other refuses to determine the resolution therefore postponing causing issues for the person who needs resolution now? What happens if one of the members decides they are not willing to seek a mediator, or that they would like to postpone the dispute indefinitely? You said there are other means to solve this. Like what?
Cut your losses and ostracize the offending party.
Who determines what is offensive can anyone just claim to be offended, and then the private mediator determines the resolution that is best in the interest of the person claiming to be offended?
Why would a mediator resolve an issue in the best interests of one party, if multiple parties are involved?
Slavery was an exaggeration of my point. Who determines what is a reasonable and unreasonable bargain?
The free market.
If there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.
How?
Who would oversee, and who would determine who would oversee?
Reputation.
I don't believe uniformity among individuality is a strong one, and I know with certainty it is not the strongest one.
How do you know with certainty? Is the strength of bonds not too subject to individual evaluation?
What happens if a war is coming, and the contractors feel they are not willing to fight at the agreed upon price as they had said before knowing the size of the war?
Then they won't fight.
Can the military just opt out
Yes.
and what would happen to the society who would they find as an alternative in such limited time, or would they just be destroyed?
Or they can fight themselves. But a private military opting out at the advent of war doesn't bode well for its reputation and business.
Would there be a penalty for the military for opting out?
No.
If so, this would contradict the free ability of selling and denying service.
It would. That's the reason I didn't suggest it.
In collectivist countries and countries that have group causes when people are involved in something that is not physical but more of an idea or a concept the idea or concept, aka cause, will live in a sense that is not alive but is at the same time. It will not die and exists in a formless sense. It's quite similar to religion, which is why religion has been the main form of unification between nations in the past. A religion exists, but it does not live so it cannot die, it can live on forever through the generations and therefore it is greater than any living thing could be because of its unending and immortal existence that is why so many people find value and things that live on after death. This is why they worship it like a god or a deity because its existence is quite similar to a god or a deity in the sense it is immortal and exists nonetheless.
Couldn't the same be stated for individual sovereignty?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To you "initiating harm or aggression" is more than finding an action immoral.
To me, effectively ending the threat to my person or property as a response to your initiation of aggression or harm is not [just] simply finding your action immoral.
Yet that does not mean this is not a moral claim.
Never stated that it wasn't.
It's a code of behavior, a code that you insist on by force.
No, it's a code I defend by force if necessary.
If your idea of mediation services must operate by this code of liberty then they operate by a universal law.
It must operate by a universal moralist code--i.e. subscription to individual sovereignty.
I see no reason besides semantics
All arguments are semantic.
to call that universal law and all its implications "the law" and the sum total of all organizations operating to enforce that law "the government".
Non sequitur. These dispute resolution organizations do not "enforce." How could they if they subscribe to individual sovereignty?
I admit that no government exists that does not violate the law,
No government exists which does not violate individual sovereignty.
but that does not mean the word does not apply; you have to look at the definition and the definition of "government" does not imply any particular laws or support system.
Any organization which presumes final authority over the individual necessarily contradicts individual sovereignty.
A 'right' is a moral entity,
Naturally.
you have a right to do more than defend your person and property, but also the person and property of others.
I wouldn't call that "a right." I don't disagree with that which I presume you intend to infer, but protecting the person and property of others is not a right. That is a claim maintained to the exclusion of all others. I'll provide a scenario. Say you see someone who has a gun pointed at them by another person. Naturally you assume that this person is being threatened. You happen to have a firearm about your person, and you shoot the other individual holding the gun. Turns out the individual holding the gun was assisting the individual at whom he was pointing his gun in his suicide attempt. Would your "right" be maintained then?
I'll give you another: what if I want to burn my own building? You see the arsonists about to ignite my building and you shoot them, would your "right" be maintained then?
I'm not suggesting at all that one would or should be condemned for acting in the defense of another and their property, but that does not suggest a "right."
If you didn't you couldn't have a right to work or run a "mediation" service could you?
What is it that you believe a mediation does?
"Opt out" must mean something along the lines of "I can disobey and you won't attack me".
I wouldn't word it that way, but I'll entertain it for the sake of argument.
If "opt out" means "I can disobey, and then you attack me for disobeying" then we can already opt out, after all the governments of the world can only attack in response to your disobedience;
Not the least bit true. The government can attack you based on mere suspicion, whether you're "obeying" or not.
I still do not see the demonstration of how any of this discredits anarcho-capitalism. You provide an arcane and antiquated reference to the Olmec which I presume was intended to demonstrate a fundamental dilemma, but it instead demonstrated a mere disagreement with how conflicts and disputes are resolved. I can maintain the morality maintained in anarcho-capitalism with consistency. You, on the other hand, have yet to do so in favor of government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whether you write it down or not, if you try to disable or kill me when I do something you find immoral, that's a law you deem I must obey.
An oversimplification. It lacks the context that you are instigating and initiating harm or aggression--not simply my finding your action immoral. I have every right to defend my person and my property, which coincides with unity in individual sovereignty. If you want to characterize that "a law which must be obeyed" that is your prerogative. I deem it as a concept which is either respected or isn't. And if one chooses to disrespect my individual sovereignty by instigating and initiating harm or aggression toward me, then I will maintain the concept of my individual sovereignty by responding in a manner consistent with the moral framework to which I subscribe, even the resolution to our conflict is one's death.
Why can't I opt out of your notion that preemptive genocide is unacceptable?
If one is functionally indistinguishable from a genocidal despot, then one has already opted out of my notions on genocide. Just note that should one direct their aggression my way, I will respond in defense of my person and property, effectively ending the threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ok... then how will I be stopped?
Persuade you, or effectively end the threat you've created which includes disabling you or killing you.
What does that mean precisely?
The supply of your legal framework isn't based on any consistent moral standard; neither is its demand.
Society wide shit-giving is indistinguishable from support for a unified set of laws.
Not really. Again, unity in individual sovereignty is only necessary. Whether it be cooperation or dispute, terms can be hashed out by the involved parties.
Unified laws being inevitable the real problem is keeping those laws moral, in other words keeping those laws from being used to violate liberty (which may be identical to what you are calling individual sovereignty)
Government or State is diametrically opposed to individual sovereignty; and therefore, liberty.
Opt out of what exactly?
Any arrangement they deem unfit, including cooperation with laws you deem they must obey.
"consumers" can opt out of supporting my ideal government. Explain.
Opting out informs the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea it's going to be war, that's what happens with irreconcilable value conflicts.So then it's back to the original arbiter: Military excellence.There are a few rules in war, one is that all warfare is deception. A consequence is that no attack succeeds more often or more spectacularly than a preemptive strike.In that case I'll see that these savages are a danger to everyone around them, and before they get a chance to burn down my house and kill me; I'll contract with a "mediator" who just happens to resort to violence 95% of the time. Let us call this "mediator" Mercenary Inc. Myself and other non-savages will pay Mercenary Inc to wipe them out. Not just the warriors, priests, and kings; but the families out to 2nd cousins.Destroy the entire race and culture in a preemptive strike.Now I'm safe, and the other people are safe. Any problem with this in your opinion?
Go as far as your conscience takes you, but note that if you sanction a mercenary group's murder of not just the king, warriors, and priests who wronged you, but members of their families who took no part in the crime perpetrated against you, then you have not taken a moral position against murder; there'd be no functional difference between you and a genocidal despot.
Not at all, simply pointing out that the vast portion of resources and manpower will be available for my plan.
To be determined.
What's wrong with punishment? And if there is something wrong with it, someone can seek a mediation company. We'll kill them and the mediation company; but they can try right?
No consistent moral economy. I don't know how this discredits anarcho-capitalism.
It's more solved than if the only consequence of murder was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit and even then only if you're identified and only if your victim had a lot of people who had both money and shits to give.
Yes, people would have to give a shit. I've never denied that. How is this premise any different than that of any other social organization? As I told Critical-Tim, the only unity necessary is in the respect of individual sovereignty.
There are two different things to volunteer for.A) Volunteer to support the enforcement of the lawB) Volunteer to obey the law
Or one can volunteer to opt out.
You imply that it is ethical to deal with the unacceptable behavior of some by hiring agents and having those agents use violence (perhaps as a last resort, but still violence).
I've implied that the incorporation of violence as a means to effectively end a threat of harm or aggression isn't morally condemnable.
There is nothing voluntary about doing murder,
Never suggested that there was.
and the murderer would not volunteer to be killed or exiled.
Why would he or she? But the murderer is not entitled to the cooperation of others as far as exile is concerned.
My ideal government can and would (by definition) require (A). How is it materially different from a giant version of what you call mediation organizations?
Because:
Athias Post #37:
operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is irrelevant, this belief was nearly universal it was not imposed from above or else it would not survive changes in regime and we're talking about thousands of tribes and dozens of distinct child cultures.
It is relevant because you're comparing the consequences of those who are coerced and those who aren't. You're moving the goal post from an objection against the State or centralized government to one against culture.
Suppose I did, I get my hands on Spanish steel armor and I take out a hundred of them before making my escape. In anger they burn down my home and all my economic assets.Then both their king and myself seek the services of a mediation group (two different companys). They claim I murdered a bunch of people who were just trying to get dinner and practice their religion. I claim I was driven from my home and demand justice and compensation.Objectively I am in the right, but the system doesn't protect my liberty simply by not being inherently biased against my self-defense. It must not only be overwhelmingly biased in favor of my self-defense but also provide for justice even if I failed to defend myself (which is so often the case as aggressors are not idiots and often attack only when victory is near certain).Please describe how anarcho-capitalist legal system fulfills those two requirements.
If you and the Olmec king seek mediation by having two companies represent your interests, then you either resolve your dispute or you continue it. Presumably, the act of seeking mediation would suggest that killing hundreds more of them, and their burning more of your homes and prospective economic assets isn't your primary goal. How you two come to terms and resolve your dispute is up to the two of you. If no arrangement is satisfactory, then the dispute goes on. If you fail to defend yourself, then your family, friends, or community can seek restitution for your wrongful death, in which case a separate mediation can occur--or they can go to war on your behalf.
Let's stick with murder.
Why? The logic is identical.
As the fundamental problem it is (and always has been) solving it would set a template for solving all other violations of liberty.
Neither I nor anarcho-capitalism has ever presumed the capacity to provide a solution to murder. Again, I value individual autonomy more than any pretenses which assume that which is outside of my control (incidence of murder) can be prevented or avoided.
My rule of engagement is that anyone who would resort to murder dies. 95% of people who've seen a murder or been threatened by murderers will agree with me.
Argumentum ad populum.
We will terminate or enslave anyone who dares to opt out of our zero-murder policy.
Then your exercise of policy isn't based in any consistent moral economy; just your presumption to "punish."
Problem solved? (Sounds a bit like the dawn of civilization to me)
Is murder "solved"?
So as long as nobody is forced to pay for it, you'll call in anarcho-capitalism? In that case my ideal government is a subset of your acceptable social constructs.
No, it's anarcho-capitalism if it's voluntary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I will by extreme example: All Olmec derived civilizations took for granted the utility, sanctity, and permissibility of human sacrifice.Regardless of how social morality is enforced, there is to my knowledge at least one objective theory of ethics which determines that anyone and any culture who engages in human sacrifice have chosen the path of savagery and forfeited any claim to enjoy liberty by right.Therefore any system that tolerates a tribe of human sacrificing cannibals in or near itself as a inherent consequence of its constitution has failed to protect the objective right to liberty.If an indispensable goal of the system you describe is not to protect liberty, then it is insufficient.
First the Olmec were ruled by monarchs; second, there's no moral condemnation in defending oneself even if it results in death. So if savage Olmec cannibals sought to use you in their sacrifices, by all means effectively end the threat. Why would this contradict the concept of liberty? Is it not enhanced?
You can have decentralized enforcement of a single rulebook, there is no problem there; the problem is with a decentralized rulebook insofar as its a diverse rulebook.
You haven't identified the problem. Each individual has their own rules of engagement; if individuals seek to cooperate with each other, then they can create terms that will service a mutual satisfaction. If they are not satisfied with the arrangement, they can choose to not opt in, or opt out. Case in point: Dating. Everyone has their own preferences and behave accordingly. There isn't a single, centralized rulebook. Does one risk STI contradiction, pregnancy, date rape, and broken hearts? Sure. It's vastly paramount to retain one's autonomy and discretion than to entertain the pretense one can avoid or prevent that which isn't (or should not be) under one's control.
Note that when I say "victimless crimes should not exist" I'm rejecting all rulebooks with victimless crimes in it, rejecting them not only for myself and my community but all communities.
And note that when I state individual autonomy is paramount, resulting in its logical extension -- anarcho-capitalism, I'm stating this not just for myself, family, and community, but for all individuals, families, and communities.
The public is the slave in this case (and in most cases), almost no prisons make a profit by labor; many have no significant work programs.
No, a sizeable majority of prisoners are de-facto slaves. I do not deny the unnecessary funding of prisons--a moot point with the public since they cannot choose where their funds go or how they're allocated--but some of the costs of prison maintenance is mitigated by prison labor. And I didn't suggest that they made profit from prison labor; only that they outsourced it to crony companies.
Investigated and proven by who?
Private organizations whose services are retained by those who discovered the murder and maintain that "murder should be punished."
I'd support people whose job it is to investigate and prove all crimes regardless of complaints.
And if there's a substantial market for this, then I'm sure it will have little trouble funding its operations.
When you have a large group of investigators with broad popular support the rulebook that determines what is a crime and what isn't is the law and that group are police.
Or private security and investigation.
At what point do you call it a centralized legal system?
When operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Does simply having any job, regardless of hours worked or wages earned translate to a healthy economy for all?Is income keeping pace with inflation?
Are you suggesting that political buzz terms like "job growth" and "low unemployment" often lack context and scarcely take into consideration inflation and underemployment?
How dare you disrespect the Biden Adminstration!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Who can opt out, the person who is guilty? I don't see how anyone could opt out of the law.
Yes, anyone--even the guilty. But if the guilty opts out of a dispute, he or she must accept that their dispute is ongoing, and thereby risk the consequence of an on-going dispute.
I recognize the private armies would be selling their services if they were being funded, but my question is who is responsible for funding the armies that guard the entire society.
The armies themselves like any private organization is responsible for its own funding. If they require outside funding, they can seek investors or request donation.
Would the funding be a collective effort, and would the effort be equal or based on a person's income?
All terms of agreement to be hashed out by the involved parties.
I don't understand what you mean by the free market. Is that the majority?
Not necessarily. Consumer-based preferences will dictate "law" and one can opt-in or opt-out.
Perhaps private mediation is effective, but what would happen in the event that neither party is willing to accept an arrangement from the other?
Then they have an ongoing dispute.
What would be the overarching structure that both would be required to follow in the event neither are willing to accept an arrangement and who would determine this?
You are making statements which imply a government. The whole point is for the individuals to come to a resolution themselves. They accept the resolution because it's a subsequent product of the terms to which they've agreed. If they, or one party by some chance disagrees with the resolution, the parties involved can seek a different mediator, resolve their dispute by other means, or continue their dispute.
What happens if an individual has been tricked into making an agreement that was obviously unfair, but they did agree to it?
Then he or she has been tricked. This creates a different dispute for which the offended party can seek private mediation.
What happens if an individual has entered into life-long indentured servitude over the inability to pay back $100?
Slave contracts will not upheld in anarchy.
Would there be anyone to oversee which agreements or transactions are considered fair, or if there cannot be a resolution found between the parties?
If there is a need for such oversight then yes.
Uniformity is how well you are unified, if you're not cooperating in uniformity then I don't see how a society would be well structured.
That is not an argument; that is your impression. Two individuals are capable of cooperating--even if they don't completely share a sense of "uniformity." They need only be unified in their sense of individuality, and the sovereignty it affords.
Would these private militaries be educated in the art of war and what is Considered ethical in the global warfare community?
They will do whatever they can to sell their services successfully. If that necessitates being educated in art of war--as I presume it would--then that is what they'll do. If they're terrible at their jobs, then they obviously will find little success in selling their services, and lose favor to their competitors.
In a society where the individual is more important than the nation, the problem is that the individual has nothing to live for after death.
Please explain.
In the end, it is a trade-off: more freedom means less meaning, and more meaning means less freedom. You buy one by selling the other.
Meaning is subject to individual evaluation.
My point is that governments that are uniformed and meaning driven are more powerful than societies that lack uniformity and meaning.
You haven't substantiated that anaracho-capitalist society lacks "meaning." And I've stated before the only unity "required" is in the concept that they're all sovereign individuals.
There is a middle ground between the concepts of freedom and meaning. I am not supporting Nazism, but I am also not supporting anarchism. I believe that both have important aspects of a society that are important, but the ideal society is between them, which is the balance between freedom and power.
On the "middle ground" is where you find inconsistency. You'll discover once you've extended these "balanced" premises to their logical conclusions, they're absurd. If one maintains that individual autonomy is the highest good, then anarchy is the logical extension politically. There's no "balance." You either subscribe to individual autonomy or you subscribe to individual behavior being subject to someone else's arbitration.
I still don't understand what you mean by free market.
Education as well as certification can be sold. Private organizations supplying these goods can compete in an an open market.
It only is non-sequitur if you just read the bold letters. By summarizing information into key points, one often loses resolution and clarity, along with accuracy of the original text.
I emboldened those parts to demonstrate contradiction. You state they (members of an anarcho-capitalist society) can coordinate and then conclude that they lack organization because you allege they can't cooperate. So, let me ask you this: is voluntary organization impossible?
Would there be a jury,
If the involved parties want one, then there could be.
and would the jury be paid by the community?
Not necessarily. Naturally, this would be paid for by the involved parties, or the parties in dispute. If however a group of individuals seek to streamline costs and pool their resources, they would be more than welcome to do so.
Who would determine the penalty for the crime?
The free market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't think I've seen a theory for a truly decentralized legal system,
Anarcho-Capitalism.
and in my analysis such a thing is inherently flawed because there is only one right answer and when there is only one right answer leaving room for diversity is leaving room for error.
Please elaborate.
I don't wish to "pile on" you Athias, answer or delay answering as you see fit please.
It's fine.
A considerable part of the justice system is geared not towards resolving disputes but punishing crime so that criminality is not a tempting path.
A considerable part of the justice system is jailing individuals for harmless "crimes," and in effect, creating de-facto slaves, whose labor is outsourced to crony companies.
As a consequence, and sometimes as a conscious goal is the motivation to defend the helpless.
Detention serving as a deterrent is a mere platitude especially considering that mass incarceration has greatly increased over the years, not decreased.
A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.
Isn't this like "if a tree falls in a forest..."? Murder has to be investigated; murder has to be proven. But let's for the sake of argument consider that somehow this man's murder is properly investigated and sufficiently proven, then the murderer can be exiled or outlawed.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Uh....no. a law is presumed constitutional until it is ruled otherwise.
I stand corrected.
Before that you just have an opinion. It's only the opinion of the judge that really matters
I thought I had to vote. So absent of my capacity to bring my grievance against the seizure of my firearms to the Supreme Court, the rights delineated in the Constitution are solely dictated by the opinion of judges?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's been my major point....along with the debt not being a problem for us
And that major point is incorrect. Inflation and debt are related. And they're both a problem for a list or reasons which includes but isn't limited to the devaluation of currency, decreased domestic and foreign investment, higher interest rates, decreased purchasing power parity, increase in the price of imports, etc. Only 10% of financial markets, if I remember correctly, are based on liquid assets. It's a downward spiral of (intentional) debt-spending.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If it does bring your case before the court.Until the law is overturned it is presumed constitutional
No it isn't. Constitutional is different from lawful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
And thus there is no relation between debt and inflation
Non sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?
No. Because consumers in a free market can opt out if dissatisfied.
Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?
The private armies would naturally sell their services.
Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?
The free market.
Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs.
Okay...
Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?
Each party involved can agree to terms which they believe will resolve their dispute. Private mediation, for example, is quite effective and successful.
I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity.
What does uniformity have to do with one's capacity to cooperate?
The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be
Is this not ideal?
and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed.
Is this not a non sequitur?
As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.
Your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that it's not Nazism?
Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?
The free market; the best standards will emerge in a competitive market.
There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.
Again, is this not a non sequitur?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So we agree inflation has been going down
We agree that the annual inflation rate has gone down from June 2022 to June 2023. If however you examine the CPI when it's published (i.e. monthly,) there's a different story be told--that is, inflation has steadily being going up.
debt is going up....right?
As long as monetary policy is centered on the printing of fiat money absent of traditional collateral (i.e. precious metals) then the debt will always be up.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Within the framework of the constitution....and this law is unless you have a ruling against it
And the government's taking away firearms doesn't disparage the right delineated in the second amendment?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Then vote. But if the will of the people pass laws to remove guns from dangerous people then they will remove them
So "majority rule"? All conflicts and disputes should then be resolved through majoritarian consensus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Cite your reference.Inflation was at 9% last year. It's at 3% now.Are you kidding?
Yeah, if we're talking about last year, then yes inflation has gone down from June of last year. But since CPI summaries are produced on a monthly basis, it would have been prudent of you to first establish the span of time for which your assessment applied. I could state inflation is down and have my point of reference be in 1778 when it was almost 30%.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Studies only matter if they promote a confirmation bias or social/political agenda, otherwise they will be cherry picked apart and ignored. This thread is proof of that. It is highly unlikely anyone who has commented has even read the book. And even if they did would it even matter? The subject matter trigger factor alone. I have no opinion as I haven't read the book. I transcended the whole race thing decades ago. All races are fucking stupid.
Well stated. And just to supplement your point, whenever these sorts of studies are conducted, they often lack sufficient controls to substantiate the conclusions talented provocateurs infer. Not to mention, if one believes that the I.Q. actually measures intelligence--the abuse of which even its creator foresaw--and not the coincidence with the standards dictated by its administration, then it's all the more reason to question the integrity of and reliance on the I.Q.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?
In an anarcho-capitalist society, laws would be subject to mechanisms of a free-market. Dispute Resolution Organizations would operate in the private sector.
How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?
Private contractors or private armies.
Do you think that anarchy would hinder progress and development, making the society vulnerable to more advanced and organized countries that might have religious motives to destroy it?
No.
How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?
Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.
How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?
Why do you assume there's no moral framework?
How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?
The free market will bring together consumers, whether it be of values or norms, and a free flowing price system will dictate where said individuals intend to dedicate their time, labor, and resources.
How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?
Why do you assume there's no education, science, or technology? Are you under the impression that government is solely responsible for the aforementioned?
How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?
Nothing about anarchy suggests individuals can't communicate, coordinate, or even integrate. As long as it's voluntary, it should meet the stipulations, for lack of a better term, of an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist environment.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Because the government is the people and we say so
And what of the people who disagree? What of the millions of gun owners who have never used or have never been reported to use their firearm in a violent act? Do they not comprise "the people"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There is no correlation to cpi and debt.
Yes there is. Real debt is determined by dividing the nominal debt by price level.
We have more debt than ever and inflation is receding
Inflation isn't receding; which CPI summary have you read? Because I assure you it isn't recent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The debt has nothing to do with goods that are over priced
Yes it most certainly does. My statement was a reference to the CPI. Do some research into it.
OK thanks. We're done
Your call.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The government can take away guns from peopke deemed dangerous
Dangerous is an "opinion," is it not? If you were to attempt to convince me of their danger to the extent where they'd require removal and prohibition, how would you start?
......and should
Why?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
This is opinion.
Redundant.
The government can say you can't own lots of things
I don't think anyone disputes what the government "can" or "can't say." That's not the objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Overpriced is sn opinion
So is the concept of "a problem." Why bring it up, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
While it is true that the pilgrims did form separate colonies and they did not all agree on their beliefs, they did agree to respect each other as independent colonies, which is a form of voluntary agreement.
A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), within the shared imperialist administration.
What about a colony is a voluntary arrangement? Even if you argue that the colonies respected each other's independence, they were still subject to British rule.
Do you believe it was sufficient, and that Alexander's campaign is not evidence of its insufficiency? As I understand it, if anything requires another to evolve or be destroyed it is evidence it was insufficient (It was required to change or be destroyed).
Since I'm proposing anarchy, naturally my position would be against any form of State. But the reason Alexander Hamilton campaigned against the Articles of Confederation was that independent sovereign states would have made it difficult to create a national bank a.k.a. Central Bank, the proposal for which he made in 1790 (a year or two after the Articles of Confederation was replaced with "the Constitution") if I remember correctly. I suppose one can say a voluntary arrangement would have been insufficient for the prospects of a Central Bank. But your suggestion that the voluntary arrangement (which wasn't voluntary by the way) had some inescapable flaw couldn't further from the truth--or my estimation of "the truth."
Do you then believe that individual sovereignty should be the highest virtue of a society or government?
Of a society, yes.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you're not really making any sense. You know the reason why a legal person/legal entity can be inanimate objects then say that the answer to that question isn't really an answer.
I intend to have you explain the reason behind the reason.
but you aren't objecting.
Actually I am.
All you have done is repeatedly say it is arbitrary without ever providing a reason why.
Rather than merely contradict for the sake of contradiction, you ought to retain the information which has already been conveyed to you.
Athias Post #20:
It's not complicated; it's whimsical and arbitrary. You can grant an inanimate object "person-hood" but not a human being at the first phase of its development? This demonstrates to me at the very least the concept of "person-hood" isn't based on any consistent principle.
And because it isn't based on any consistent principle, I have reached the conclusion that it is based on personal content and/or whim. Hence, arbitrary. It doesn't matter how "elaborate" a reason may be. And remember you yourself acknowledged this inconsistency:
This is true. In different contexts a legal person doesn't always mean the same thing. For example, corporations are legal persons in the eyes of the law, but they don't have "bodily autonomy". So the logic between the 2 is not consistent.
In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less ambiguously, any legal entity)[1][2] that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.[3][4][5] The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not people in a literal sense (human beings).
Let's save this for a bit later.
lol, all you are doing is repeatedly saying the word is arbitrary without ever demonstrating that you understand the word you are using.
Your disagreement with my application of the term "arbitrary" doesn't create an onus on my part to demonstrate the term's meaning to your satisfaction. much less demonstrate my lack of understanding. I've laid out the reason I believe its arbitrary; you've scarcely laid out the reason you believe it's not arbitrary. That's all there's been to it thus far.
All I can say is "seem" since as far as I can tell you don't understand the word properly.
That's your impression. That is NOT an argument.
You seem to be getting hung up on the word "person", but the legal term "person" and the colloquial term "person" are very different things.
I don't "seem" anything. Take responsibility for you impression/assumption and simply state, "I assume..." Or you can abandon any illusion of authority over that which I am or am not "hung up."
ok, again. A "legal person" has nothing to do with being human.
Actually it does, especially considering that legal persons include for human beings. (Your cited description states as much.) The point of "persona ficta" is to grant non-human entities certain privileges typical to persons and have its proxy be extended through juridical arbitration.
You seem to be implying there
Seem is not an argument.
some reason why a zygote/embryo should inherently have that term applied to it
Because humans beings typically have the term "legal person" applied to them. And a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being, not a "cancerous tumor."
Why do you think a fetus should inherently be deemed a legal person?
Look above.
Why do you think an inanimate object shouldn't?
Never stated that it "shouldn't." Only that a lake's status as a "legal person" and a zygote's/embryo's/fetus's exclusion were arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that depends on what exactly you are talking about. More than 1 body of water has been designated a legal person. But typically this is to grant a specific natural feature (a water shed, forest etc) additional protections from pollution or some other man made destruction. Lake Erie, for example, was made a legal person by voters.
I'm aware of the reason Lake Erie, for example, was granted personhood. That's however not what I requested. I requested that you submit a description of personhood and delineate how its different from how I'm applying the term.
I explained it in the rest of the paragraph you clipped this from.
No, you actually didn't.
A legal person has protections under the law. So whether or not someone/something is a legal person is an important question when determining what rights or protections that person/thing has.
Why is it that "personhood" includes for inanimate objects? And if your response is that it's intended to protect such and such... then you're not really answering anything.
correct. A fetus is not a legal person, some bodies of water are. I think you are getting tripped up on the word person. It doesn't mean a human being.
Because the description of of "legal" personhood has allowed for arbitrary inclusions and exclusions.
No, you seem to not understand the concept of a legal person. It doesn't mean a human.
Seem is not an argument; and do not confuse "objection" with "ignorance/misunderstanding."
Maybe the term "legal entity" would be less confusing for you.
I'm not "confused" by it; I'm vexed by it.
Have a look at this for more details.
Quote the part you believe applies to this discussion.
no, it's not.
Yes it very much is.
You just seem to not understand the words you are using.
Seem is not an argument.
Please have a look at the definition of a legal person/legal entity. You seem to be confusing it with the word "human" and getting tripped up.
I already know. My contention is based on the hypocrisy of those who would claim that a "Lake" is/ought to be a legally protected "person" or object, while also claiming a live human being, i.e. zygote/embryo/fetus should not. The only reason a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a "legal person" is simply because it's not--except in some cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, which also results in the death of her unborn child. Hence, arbitrary.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No; I'm not going to bite the bullet and defend forced kidney transplants. But being consistent with not biting the bullet, there are times when pro choicers would have to bite the bullet.
In my stating this, I'm attempting to demonstrate that one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other, i.e. bodily autonomy and "right to life." However, I do understand your point as it concerns parents and their children, and the obligations those who are pro-life attempt to coerce parents to assume.
Surrogates usually charge between $80K-$150K for their services.
What is the objection?
This is biting the bullet; virtually everybody believes a deadbeat dad should be FORCED to pay child support (sacrifice fiscal autonomy) in the name of the right to life for his child.
I don't.
What's the difference? Bodily autonomy is freedom from pain; stealing money to buy drugs your addicted too is freedom from pain.
Not quite. Bodily autonomy is subjecting the behavior of one's own body to one's own discretion. Steal money to buy drugs is just stealing to buy drugs.
The pro lifers go after surrogacy (which I think is very rare); they would go after whatever is needed to be consistently pro life.
Fair enough.
The issue with that is there are times when bodily autonomy comes into conflict with fiscal autonomy, so one has to prevail. Like should someone be allowed to steal from you (loss of fiscal autonomy) to do drugs (gain of bodily autonomy)?
The problem with your equivalence is that it assumes "stealing" is a necessary condition. Can an addict not simply purchase drugs?
Most people would say no, implying that someone's fiscal autonomy outweighs the bodily autonomy of a meth user.
Most people would say no because stealing violates one's proprietary right which can extend to both one's body and one's finances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that humans have no objective or intrinsic value,
Objective is not synonymous with intrinsic. And while I do subscribe to the concept of intrinsic human value, I do not believe it's immune to examination.
Do you believe that everyone should be treated as if they have an equal intrinsic value, and what do you believe would be the consequences of implementing or opposing this?
It's not a subject of equal. Everyone has intrinsic value, and this is best expressed at least in my estimation through individualist philosophy. The consequences of opposing this would the relegation of individuals as objects, as opposed to subjects, in their own lives.
I suppose I was looking for something that would rigidify your claim. I don't have any particular suggestion on how you could measure or prove your statement, but you claim it as if it's a matter of fact.
Most of that which I state about the adoption of Luciferianism, especially on a world-wide scale, is based on my conjecture (naturally I'm not a Psychic and cannot claim with any verifiable data what a person truly believes.) I can only piece things to together based on what I estimate is plausible and likely. So for example, can I "rigidify" that the Pope is a Luciferian? No. But I am willing to gamble on being embarrassingly wrong that the Pope is in fact a Luciferian. So my statements are based on my readings (mostly books) and my knowledge of mythology. As for my description of Communism, you need only look into project paper clip, Joseph McCarthy and his suspicious death, and the progression of Central Bank Policy since this nation's inception.
An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.
That was not a voluntary arrangement. The clue in that is the 13 colonies were colonies.
We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.
Not in the least bit true. This was mostly a result of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist campaign against it.
Moreover, I cannot name a single nation that has neither evolved nor crumbled.
And the anarchy I've described has never been practiced on a societal or even global scale. There were societies which approximated an "anarchy," but still not anarchy.
You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.
Because of sovereign individuality. No individual should have a final authority as it concerns one's self, time, labor, and resources other than oneself.
I see, objective seems to be interpretable. How about intrinsic?
See above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I have no reason to believe he would even care.
Maybe he wouldn't; maybe he would; you haven't given him the opportunity one way or the other.
Whiteflame is the only one who can do anything about it at the moment.
That may be, but Whiteflame is in a difficult position, especially considering the moderation staff he oversees. There's already expressed disinterest, and even in advent of interest, it's his "responsibility" for lack of a better term to ensure the "right fit." And I'm not sure, even in light of all this, that oromagi isn't the right fit.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you aren't actually describing something arbitrary though. You are just describing separate usages of the same term.What is your preferred description of "arbitrary?""based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." And no one flipped a coin to decide if something is a person or not. They looked at the available information and requirements of a specific situation and decided based on that information if something/someone should be a legal person. That is not arbitrary. That is a series of decisions based on differing information and situation.
Submit the description of the term that was used in granting legal personhood to a Lake, and delineate how it is different from how I've applied the term.
but legally it is an important distinction.
Why?
A person has certain rights and protections,
So does a particular lake.
a fetus does not.
Because it is not as much of a "person" as a lake is.
Perhaps this is where the core of our disagreement is. I am using "person" in the legal sense. In law, a person can be a human, a company, a statue, a body of water etc.
And this is arbitrary.
Being a person and being a human are not even really related in a legal sense.
Because the legal description of personhood is based on whim.
Created: