Jacob Bloom: I think you are incontinent because you rely on an overrationalized set of values that you claim to be absolute that will crumble eventually. When that happens, you will be totally and utterly out of control.
I think you are incontinent because you rely on an overrationalized set of values that you claim to be absolute that will crumble eventually. When that happens, you will be totally and utterly out of control.
Incontinence is not that you think I may be out of control in some point in time.
Incontinence is you saying you are out of control and need a master.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Jacob Bloom:Admit that you have done a poor job of presenting your ideas, and I will ask you to ban me.
I suppose the slave on the cotton plantation made a poot job of presenting his ideas to master. oh well.
if you are honest you will admit you dodged any attempt at rational debate and preferred to dance about morality, even when youwere offered discource on economics which several times you asked for, but never responded directly to once your invitation was accepted.
Jacob Bloom:Also, you didn't answer my questions about the courts, why not?
a) they were irrelevant, if you would read the posts immediately preceding to you asking about them....
b) 2nd they are as retarded as asking how many burger bars there should be in a free society. but i guess some people dont feelthe need to check their questions for plausability before launching them on the world. we have a word for these people. beginning m.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
wilderness: Jacob Bloom: wilderness: Wrong. Good judgement is the process of aiming and hitting the target. Judgement is morality. What if I judge it's good to kill you? The aim is happiness. How is murdering somebody making them happy? A. You only happy: 1+0=1 B. You and victim happy: 1=1=2 B's aim is better. It's that logical. Jacob Bloom: And I think it's moral to do so because I believe your ideas will eventually become terrorism which will endanger the lives of others? Would I not be moral to eliminate you? Or vice versa. What if you thought those things of me? That's illogical. First you would have to have good understanding. Understanding is morality. To be able to aim and hit the target a person needs good judgement and good understanding. Judgement and Understanding are morality. Judgement is about what choice to make. Understanding is about the choices judgement will choose from. Aim - Target. You lack this and that's why you're being considered illogical.
Jacob Bloom: wilderness: Wrong. Good judgement is the process of aiming and hitting the target. Judgement is morality. What if I judge it's good to kill you?
wilderness: Wrong. Good judgement is the process of aiming and hitting the target. Judgement is morality.
Wrong.
Good judgement is the process of aiming and hitting the target. Judgement is morality.
What if I judge it's good to kill you?
The aim is happiness. How is murdering somebody making them happy?
A. You only happy: 1+0=1
B. You and victim happy: 1=1=2
B's aim is better. It's that logical.
Jacob Bloom: And I think it's moral to do so because I believe your ideas will eventually become terrorism which will endanger the lives of others? Would I not be moral to eliminate you? Or vice versa. What if you thought those things of me?
And I think it's moral to do so because I believe your ideas will eventually become terrorism which will endanger the lives of others? Would I not be moral to eliminate you? Or vice versa. What if you thought those things of me?
That's illogical. First you would have to have good understanding. Understanding is morality. To be able to aim and hit the target a person needs good judgement and good understanding. Judgement and Understanding are morality. Judgement is about what choice to make. Understanding is about the choices judgement will choose from. Aim - Target. You lack this and that's why you're being considered illogical.
1. You have something 1 and I have something 1. I take what you have and now I have 2. You have zero. My problem isn't what you have, it's what I have. This is what markets are about. Not everyone being happy because everyone else is happy, but being happy because they can get what they want. What if I'm not happy until I have what you have?
2. Do not try semantics games by fusing morality and understanding into one word. I can have understanding of things without having morals. I can aim a gun by judging your distance and understanding what the gun will do to you. I judge to shoot you because I think you are a threat to myself. It's logical to eliminate you if you are a threat.
I can understand what you want and judge I need to make it so you'll buy it from me. I do this for me, not for you. I make what you want, I aim to sell it to you. You buy it, my judgement and understanding were correct as well as my aim. I got my target. This is also logical.
Morals never enter into the picture. It's neither morally right nor wrong to give you what you want so I'll get what I want. I could've gotten it another way. I chose not to. Because I thought the diplomatic way was the most efficient way to get what I want.
Jacob Bloom: After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism.
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me.
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:Admit that you have done a poor job of presenting your ideas, and I will ask you to ban me. I suppose the slave on the cotton plantation made a poot job of presenting his ideas to master. oh well. if you are honest you will admit you dodged any attempt at rational debate and preferred to dance about morality, even when youwere offered discource on economics which several times you asked for, but never responded directly to once your invitation was accepted. Jacob Bloom:Also, you didn't answer my questions about the courts, why not? a) they were irrelevant, if you would read the posts immediately preceding to you asking about them.... b) 2nd they are as retarded as asking how many burger bars there should be in a free society. but i guess some people dont feelthe need to check their questions for plausability before launching them on the world. we have a word for these people. beginning m.
1. I asked you a question about the courts, you didn't answer it. I take this to mean that you know the answer is not a very good one. I came here admitting that I saw logic in your previous arguments only to learn that you couldn't close.
That's right, the slaves had nothing to offer their masters that was better than what their masters already had. Therefore, they remained slaves. You have yet to offer me something better than what I already have, therefore I remain unconvinced.
2. Burger bars and courts are different. How are they different? I'll give you a hint, one sells something and the other decides something.
And also, if my questions are so bad, why do you suck so bad at answering them?
And why do you guys see burger bars as courts as shoe factories as software companies. They're all different!
wilderness: Jacob Bloom: I think you are incontinent because you rely on an overrationalized set of values that you claim to be absolute that will crumble eventually. When that happens, you will be totally and utterly out of control. Incontinence is not that you think I may be out of control in some point in time. Incontinence is you saying you are out of control and need a master.
Your only control is your weak master that you imagine. When that weak master disappears, so too will your self control.
Dondoolee: Jacob Bloom: After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect. I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it. If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it.
Jacob Bloom: I take this to mean that you know the answer is not a very good one.
im sorry not to have wowed you slaver moron.
Jacob Bloom:2. Burger bars and courts are different. How are they different? I'll give you a hint, one sells something and the other decides something.
Jacob Bloom:And also, if my questions are so bad, why do you suck so bad at answering them?
Jacob Bloom:And why do you guys see burger bars as courts as shoe factories as software companies. They're all different!
of course they are different. but they are similar where it counts.
I also want to add that the central tenet of my philosophy is personal responsibility.
You take responsibility for your own life. If you don't like something, you change it. If you want something, you get it. You don't look to other people to just give it to you. Unless you can convince them to.
Personal responsibility is what makes me say to you "try your society if you think it's so good."
I mean...it's like you guys are a bunch of skinny trainers telling me you know how to get big. Prove it. And I'll join your side. Don't give me a book. Enact the policies of the book. If they work, I'll join you.
That being said, I do think I'm exhausted again. It's time for another break. I hope everyone has a nice day.
Jacob Bloom:Katz, geography and morality have one very big difference, what is it? I'll give you a hint. There's actually an Earth.
Sure, that's an adequate response, but my point only was that your denial of morality did not follow from your premises in the argument. You can't conclude the non-existence of morality, or the subjectivity of morality (which you keep alternating between) from the observation that people differ in their moral conclusions. If you want to get the non-existence from somewhere else, fine, I was just saying it didn't follow there.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom: I take this to mean that you know the answer is not a very good one. assumption makes an ass out of U im sorry not to have wowed you slaver moron. Jacob Bloom:2. Burger bars and courts are different. How are they different? I'll give you a hint, one sells something and the other decides something. burger bars give better service than courts, try walking up to a bar to get a burger, and try filing suit and getting a trial date. if the court was in the business of selling it would be superior. its basic economics. its so trivial. Jacob Bloom:And also, if my questions are so bad, why do you suck so bad at answering them? i answer them fine. just becqause you dont like the asnwers doesnt mean they are wrong. logic isnt done through youre emotions, though you have declared that everything has to be run tjhrough your fear emotion processor unit to get its pass or fail. im sorry, im not a trained psychiatrist and i can't help you with that major malfunction. Jacob Bloom:And why do you guys see burger bars as courts as shoe factories as software companies. They're all different! of course they are different. but they are similar where it counts.
1. You should be, because I expected to be wowed by Magic Graham.
2. I have a pretty good lawyer, he'll get you in and out with a trial date in a day. Economics doesn't apply to force. The courts aren't selling shit. They're upholding rules.
3. Well, how can you dismiss their differences like they don't matter? It's a form of collectivism, grouping every industry under the same labels. Laws are not burgers! Burgers are not tennis balls! Tennis balls are not computer software! There are differences between all these things, and the differences matter!
Ok, I'm really done now. I'll talk to you guys later. Take care.
Jacob Bloom: What did you go to prison for Felker? Where was your morality? Why didn't it stop you?
What did you go to prison for Felker?
Where was your morality? Why didn't it stop you?
That's quite a leap, isn't it. Do you now want to claim that anyone who does time did something not just illegal, but immoral - but you don't believe in morality!
Jacob Bloom: 1. You have something 1 and I have something 1. I take what you have and now I have 2. You have zero. My problem isn't what you have, it's what I have. This is what markets are about. Not everyone being happy because everyone else is happy, but being happy because they can get what they want. What if I'm not happy until I have what you have?
Then your judgement is poor. There's always the possibly that you trying to take what I have could kill you as I enact self-defense. Or you could simply ask me, we negotiate, and the probability of risk decreasing and the happiness increasing is a high probability.
Jacob Bloom: 2. Do not try semantics games by fusing morality and understanding into one word. I can have understanding of things without having morals. I can aim a gun by judging your distance and understanding what the gun will do to you. I judge to shoot you because I think you are a threat to myself. It's logical to eliminate you if you are a threat.
No. Morality has always meant judgement and understanding. Read Aristotle and Rothbard and all the philosophers in-between and you'll find out the biological aspects of the brain called judgement and understanding have always been what morality is. You can't have understanding and judgement without morality. That's like saying somebody has a log cabin with no logs. They have always meant morality. You simply error in learning and knowing what basic definitions are and have been for thousands of years. You're lack of education has been pointed out various times in this thread. To give an example: The law of non-contradiction is a moral process due to good judgement and understanding of reality. That's why that law is logical. Immorality is Illogical.
Jacob Bloom: I can understand what you want and judge I need to make it so you'll buy it from me. I do this for me, not for you. I make what you want, I aim to sell it to you. You buy it, my judgement and understanding were correct as well as my aim. I got my target. This is also logical.
No. Your aim of happiness is poor due to the increased level of risk in trying to take what you want aka (A) stealing cause you might get shot. If your aim of happiness was any better you would find out I would (B) freely trade with you without you needlessly trying to coerce me. That's why you are being illogical. A perfectly good understanding of the options leads you to choose option A when option B is available. Therefore you use bad judgement by increasing risk when a decreased risk option is on the negotiation table.
Jacob Bloom: Morals never enter into the picture. It's neither morally right nor wrong to give you what you want so I'll get what I want. I could've gotten it another way. I chose not to. Because I thought the diplomatic way was the most efficient way to get what I want.
When you choose you are making a judgement thereby you are moralizing. It's human action.
Jacob Bloom: I hope everyone has a nice day.
Jacob Bloom: Your only control is your weak master that you imagine. When that weak master disappears, so too will your self control.
wtf is that supposed to mean...
So you admit you need a master and are therefore incontinent.
Jacob Bloom:1. You should be, because I expected to be wowed by Magic Graham.
Jacob Bloom:2. I have a pretty good lawyer, he'll get you in and out with a trial date in a day.
Jacob Bloom:The courts aren't selling shit
Jacob Bloom:They're upholding rules.
Jacob Bloom:3. Well, how can you dismiss their differences like they don't matter? It's a form of collectivism, grouping every industry under the same labels. Laws are not burgers! Burgers are not tennis balls! Tennis balls are not computer software! There are differences between all these things, and the differences matter!
look, burgers are not tennis balls, but one is not fitter for socialism than the other. moron.
Jacob Bloom:I mean...it's like you guys are a bunch of skinny trainers telling me you know how to get big. Prove it. And I'll join your side. Don't give me a book. Enact the policies of the book. If they work, I'll join you.
It's a tangent, but I'm not convinced this is as logical as it sounds. As Arthur Jones pointed out, asking the big guy in the gym for advice is not particularly useful either - he could have such good genetics that he's huge despite his idiotic routine. Reading what the pros do doesn't help much, either, unless you're going to take the drugs they do. So how does one make a decision about a training routine? It seems to me that you'd take any suggested routine and judge it against the appropriate science to avoid wasting your time. That is, you'd judge the routine on its own merits, through reason, rather than on the basis of who suggested it.
Now, what if I do a routine and fail to grow? Would that be an adequate reason for you to reject that routine, if it had other evidence on its side? Again, I think not. I could have been not working hard enough, or not eating right, or a million other factors could be responsible. In fact, that's precisely why muscle mags print so many (contradictory) articles from big guys - if you're confused enough, jumping from routine to routine, not growing, at some point you'll come to think "hey, maybe it's because I'm not using supplements."
You have been provided multiple examples of anarchic societies, such as the Icelandic Commonwealth and Rural Pennsylviania. The former desentigrated after 300 years, longer than the US has existed. Both broke down due to massive external assault. One was slowly broken into via the legal system. These systems persisted because people wanted them. They ceased to exist because states tried to destroy them, and eventually, after massive effort, they succeded.
These weren't inevitable, there were weaknesses in the systems, a set amount of courts in the IC, that the state exploited.
But everything that happened didn't need to happen.
There is an entire list of anarchist communities, large and small, long lasting and short lived, on wikipedia. The fact that you haven't found it yet betrays a lack of true interest in the anarchist case, because were I in your position, I would LOOK for answers, instead of waiting for them.
Also, as I said, many human transactions are already anarchic.
What makes you think that I believe that a perfect world is achieveable?
Stranger: Humans are quite capable of communism - that is what primitive tribal societies practice. They have been wiped out over time by technologically superior individualistic societies that saw the advantages in an individualistic society. It was a long, slow process, and it needed a starting point. The first pure free market society will likewise wipe out all political societies.
Humans are quite capable of communism - that is what primitive tribal societies practice. They have been wiped out over time by technologically superior individualistic societies that saw the advantages in an individualistic society. It was a long, slow process, and it needed a starting point.
The first pure free market society will likewise wipe out all political societies.
I more or less agree with this although I view it as a possibility rather than an inevitability. I'd add that the if pure free market societies do emerge, they likely won't follow orthodox Rothbardianism. There may be some that do, but if these societies become widespread phenomena, there will likely be a lot of diversity.
The difficulty is that there are tremendous opportunity costs in such a transition, which may prevent it from ever happening.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap