redflag - left communist mailing list
Jeff Rubard
devoted to discussion of (Marxist and non-Marxist) libertarian
communist theories and (legal) tactics. The list is not affiliated
with any organization, but my purpose in starting it is to move
towards a non-party working group capable of understanding
contemporary life both "on its own terms" and through radical
critique; the list will however be "unmoderated" as long as this is
manageable ;); the domain is hosted by Nexpoint, and an archive will
be maintained.
To subscribe, send an email to redflag-...@opensentence.org with
anything in the message body; to unsubscribe, send an email to
redflag-u...@opensentence.org.
Jeff Rubard
www.opensentence.org
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03101...@posting.google.com...
> This email is to announce the creation of the redflag mailing list,
> devoted to discussion of (Marxist and non-Marxist) libertarian
> communist
Libertarian communist? That is the worst oxymoron in history, combining two
words of diametrically opposed meanings; it is exactly the same as saying
something is a beneficial fatal item.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > This email is to announce the creation of the redflag mailing list,
> > devoted to discussion of (Marxist and non-Marxist) libertarian
> > communist
>
> Libertarian communist? That is the worst oxymoron in history, combining two
> words of diametrically opposed meanings; it is exactly the same as saying
> something is a beneficial fatal item.
>
Stuart Hawkins
It dosen't change the fact it is a load of nonsence and constitutes a
massive oxymoron.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fa5...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > This email is to announce the creation of the redflag mailing list,
> > > > devoted to discussion of (Marxist and non-Marxist) libertarian
> > > > communist
> > >
> > > Libertarian communist? That is the worst oxymoron in history, combining
> two
> > > words of diametrically opposed meanings; it is exactly the same as
> saying
> > > something is a beneficial fatal item.
> > >
> > It's really not a new thing, I swear. Got going a little bit before 1850.
>
> It dosen't change the fact it is a load of nonsence and constitutes a
> massive oxymoron.
Well, it wouldn't change any such fact but it does change the onus of
demonstrating such a fact. It's on you.
Stuart Hawkins
Libertarian; pertaining to libery, freedom
Communism; pertaining to control and domination.
Jeff Rubard
The first is fine; the second is massively wrong, and although I'm
glad to clear it up for you I would have appreciated a less strident
tone. The principle of communism (articulated before Marx) is "from
each according to their ability; to each according to their need",
which is decidedly not equivalent to liberty but perhaps not
incompatible with it, a question which factual errors like yours
massively prejudice.
Stuart Hawkins
It is incompaitable with freedom, for their need is not their providence.
Those that need more than they produce must then take from those who produce
more than they need and as such those others are dominated and made slaves,
their freedom to keep what they produce is taken from them.
Kingbarry2000
BBBBZZTTTT ! Wrongo.
Just look at the phrase again:
"from each according to their ability; to each according to their need"
Now, on which side of the line do you fall ? the FROM or the TO ?
The FROMers tend to be the doers, the TOers tend to be the lazy slobs.
I am a FROMer, and the TOers are trying to control and dominate me.
Thank you, and have a day.
--
Conlige suspectos semper habitos
Jeff Rubard
What part of "working-class" don't you understand? I'm guessing the
remunerative aspect.
Jeff Rubard
Since when does divine providence limn the boundaries of freedom? I'm
serious here. And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery. That's what
happens when you can't drive a good bargain and yet do not care for
some reason; which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all things
considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not domination
and control).
Kingbarry2000
What part of elite capitalist pig don't you understand ? I'm guessing the
rich aspect.
Kingbarry2000
Is this a sample of the dialectic ?
There is a contest for programmers : the obfuscated C contest.
Is there a similar contest for Marxists ?
Is this an entry ?
Jeff Rubard
No, these are outright assertions and questions intended to permit of
simple answers: it's straight-up analysis.
> There is a contest for programmers : the obfuscated C contest.
I believe you.
> Is there a similar contest for Marxists ?
Yes, but it's not run by Marxists.
> Is this an entry ?
No, it is clearer than your own writing (less of myself invested in
it).
Stuart Hawkins
There is no such thing as the divine, I refer to the ability of an
individual to produce.
> I'm
> serious here.
And so am I
> And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
> as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery.
In the free market there is no slavery, in communism the productive are
slaves to the unproductive.
> That's what
> happens when you can't drive a good bargain
Can't drive a good bargain? With whom are we bargaining?
> and yet do not care for
> some reason;
If someone does not care then what is their problem?
> which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
How so?
> In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all things
> considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not domination
> and control).
Free beyond your menas is impossible as freedom is not an outcome of
economics etc, it is the state in which you exist.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sLLqb.332345$pl3.140154@pd7tw3no>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3faa...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
?
> > The FROMers tend to be the doers, the TOers tend to be the lazy slobs.
> > I am a FROMer, and the TOers are trying to control and dominate me.
> > Thank you, and have a day.
>
> What part of "working-class" don't you understand? I'm guessing the
> remunerative aspect.
Then you will be interested to find that the profit maximising point for any
firm is MPL=Rw, where MPL is the marginal product of labour and RW is gthe
real wage. This means that mathematics has proven that the surpluss value of
labour does not and can not exist in the free market. YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stuart Hawkins
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<sLLqb.332345$pl3.140154@pd7tw3no>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Just look at the phrase again:
> > > "from each according to their ability; to each according to their
need"
> > > Now, on which side of the line do you fall ? the FROM or the TO ?
> > > The FROMers tend to be the doers, the TOers tend to be the lazy slobs.
> > > I am a FROMer, and the TOers are trying to control and dominate me.
> > > Thank you, and have a day.
> >
> > What part of "working-class" don't you understand? I'm guessing the
> > remunerative aspect.
>
> What part of elite capitalist pig don't you understand ? I'm guessing the
> rich aspect.
>
Jeff Rubard
I understand the rich aspect just fine by my lights (has a lot more to
do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're not
doing too much labor). And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
away with this discussion (and that's not a good sign generally) so I
don't feel too bad.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<sLLqb.332345$pl3.140154@pd7tw3no>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3faa...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Now, on which side of the line do you fall ? the FROM or the TO
> ?
> > > The FROMers tend to be the doers, the TOers tend to be the lazy slobs.
> > > I am a FROMer, and the TOers are trying to control and dominate me.
> > > Thank you, and have a day.
> >
> > What part of "working-class" don't you understand? I'm guessing the
> > remunerative aspect.
>
> Then you will be interested to find that the profit maximising point for any
> firm is MPL=Rw, where MPL is the marginal product of labour and RW is gthe
> real wage. This means that mathematics has proven that the surpluss value of
> labour does not and can not exist in the free market. YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marginalism is fascinating, and was a distinct improvement in economic
theory when it was introduced in the 19th century (a little while
after communism). It's gone through many incarnations, of which you
are referencing the first one as holy writ; but do you use a lot of
vegetable tonic?
Kingbarry2000
So, you're a TOer.
I've worked ( labored ) hard all my life, and after working for people, I
decided to
start my own corp and employ people. I paid them well, and became 'rich'.
What part of the above is wrong ?
I created wealth for myself, my employees, my community, my customers, paid
very high taxes, and went to church occasionally.
Yer right, my life was a waste.
I should have been out agitating the masses.
I should never again be a FROMer.
--
Porto le corna ch'ogni Huomo le vede, e qualch' Altro le porta che nol
crede.
Stuart Hawkins
How so?
> And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> away with this discussion
Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
confronted with that fact.
Stuart Hawkins
It is standard microeconomic theory, the one you will find in almost every
economics textbook. We know it to be the case because mathematics proves it
is so, that means you must prove that 1+1 does not equal 2 for there to be a
surpluss value to labour. Mathematics has proven you wrong Mr. Rubard
Jeff Rubard
That's what I just said (these are, ahem, "classic" tropes). But
economics is not mathematics, economics is an empirically-based
science and simple mathematics does not close an empirical issue
(there are much more complicated econometric schemes you don't know
which do not close them). This is a bad argument you've given, and
it's telling in a number of ways: among them the likelihood that it's
not too important it's a bad argument.
Jeff Rubard
Right, I don't have any money. Jesus, when can sign up to be your
caddy?
I'm serious here, Sir.
> I've worked ( labored ) hard all my life, and after working for people, I
> decided to
> start my own corp and employ people. I paid them well, and became 'rich'.
> What part of the above is wrong ?
There's nothing wrong with it except that paying people to do stuff
isn't labor, it's management. Not too crazy a division of effort,
really; and I'm not saying it's not hard, just that it's not
productive -- you're not making stuff when you're telling people what
to do.
> I created wealth for myself, my employees, my community, my customers, paid
> very high taxes, and went to church occasionally.
> Yer right, my life was a waste.
I didn't call your life a waste.
> I should have been out agitating the masses.
Do you think this is a profitable activity?
> I should never again be a FROMer.
It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
Jeff Rubard
> > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're not
> > doing too much labor).
>
> How so?
Rich people have a lot of money, you know. They didn't necessarily
work for it: that's not a necessary condition, in fact there are a lot
of poor people who work hard and get very little for it.
> > And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > away with this discussion
>
> Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
> confronted with that fact.
The telepsychiatrist is in. I am actually reassured by this, but
would mention to you that however much I might want to steal it's
actually likely you've "stolen" more than me in my lifetime, as you
live in New Zealand which has a handsome welfare state. The US can be
a much tougher place than other developed countries, and you can
believe it without necessarily modifying your assumptions about my
personality. (We've never met and spoken, right?)
> > (and that's not a good sign generally) so I
> > don't feel too bad.
Why no comment here? Would the analysis of this neurosis be
interminable?
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're not
> > > doing too much labor).
> >
> > How so?
>
> Rich people have a lot of money, you know.
Really? Alert the press, rich people have a lot of money.
> They didn't necessarily work for it:
Really? Then how the hell did they get it and can you tell me where I may
get some of this free money? where they in charge of a communist dctatorship
where they murdered all the people and took all the money?
> that's not a necessary condition, in fact there are a lot
> of poor people who work hard and get very little for it.
>
MPL=RW, it is a mathematically proven fact. The work they do simply isn't
worth much.
> > > And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > > away with this discussion
> >
> > Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
> > confronted with that fact.
>
> The telepsychiatrist is in. I am actually reassured by this, but
> would mention to you that however much I might want to steal it's
> actually likely you've "stolen" more than me in my lifetime, as you live
in New Zealand which has a handsome welfare state.
Actually I actively deny government assistance, I refused student allowace
and have never been on the dole. So if you have accepted even $1 from the
government then you have proven yourself wrong. You now owe me an appology.
> The US can be a much tougher place than other developed countries, and you
can
> believe it without necessarily modifying your assumptions about my
> personality. (We've never met and spoken, right?)
>
It is a pathetic social welfare state.
> > > (and that's not a good sign generally) so I
> > > don't feel too bad.
>
> Why no comment here? Would the analysis of this neurosis be
> interminable?
I couldn't be bothered as it is an irrelevancy.
Stuart Hawkins
Are you completely unfamiliar with the process of science? Science is a
carriage drawn by two horses, theory and empirics. Theory leads the ways and
emprics tests the path. The theory I mentioned is long standing and
universially accepted by micoreconomists because it is so well tested with
empirics. The surpluss value of labour has been disproven by empirics and
mathematics, the profit maximising position allows the derivation of the
formula; RW=MPL. Therefore mathematics has proven yet again you do not know
what you are talking about.
Have you studied economics?
> This is a bad argument you've given, and
> it's telling in a number of ways: among them the likelihood that it's
> not too important it's a bad argument.
Simply saying ti is a bad argument does not make it so Mr. Rubard. My
argument is backed by theory, mathematics, and decades of empiric evidence.
Your counter argument ammounts to, I say that isn't true. You have lost Mr.
Rubard.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6Ejrb.348005$pl3.182071@pd7tw3no>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fac...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:eSOqb.334149$6C4.222158@pd7tw1no...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Kingbarry2000" <kingbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<sLLqb.332345$pl3.140154@pd7tw3no>...
> > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > I understand the rich aspect just fine by my lights (has a lot more to
> > > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're not
> > > doing too much labor). And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > > away with this discussion (and that's not a good sign generally) so I
> > > don't feel too bad.
> >
> > So, you're a TOer.
>
> Right, I don't have any money. Jesus, when can sign up to be your
> caddy?
> I'm serious here, Sir.
>
> > I've worked ( labored ) hard all my life, and after working for people,
I
> > decided to
> > start my own corp and employ people. I paid them well, and became
'rich'.
> > What part of the above is wrong ?
>
> There's nothing wrong with it except that paying people to do stuff
> isn't labor, it's management. Not too crazy a division of effort,
> really; and I'm not saying it's not hard, just that it's not
> productive -- you're not making stuff when you're telling people what
> to do.
>
Well technically speaking you are completely wrong.
Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the sum of
their product, then take the situation where he does management and sum the
product of the workers and the difference between the two is the marginal
product attributeable to his management.
Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being productive? To
be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does not
actually build them etc.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand. The product of any worker is limited by the capacity
of their body, whereas the productivity of the manager is limited by the
capacity of his mind and the benefits of his product are extended to all
those below him who benefit from his ideas.
> > I created wealth for myself, my employees, my community, my customers,
paid
> > very high taxes, and went to church occasionally.
> > Yer right, my life was a waste.
>
> I didn't call your life a waste.
>
> > I should have been out agitating the masses.
>
> Do you think this is a profitable activity?
>
When it is for liberty, yes.
> > I should never again be a FROMer.
>
> It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year (Tax)
to go to people who do not deserve it.
Jeff Rubard
Technically speaking you don't know what you're talking about and are
throwing categorical terms around like there's no tomorrow.
> Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the sum of
> their product, then take the situation where he does management and sum the
> product of the workers and the difference between the two is the marginal
> product attributeable to his management.
"Marginal product" == subjective value. I know whereof I speak.
Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
> Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being productive? To
> be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does not
> actually build them etc.
The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has not
been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> To paraphrase Ayn Rand. The product of any worker is limited by the capacity
> of their body, whereas the productivity of the manager is limited by the
> capacity of his mind and the benefits of his product are extended to all
> those below him who benefit from his ideas.
The productivity of the manager is limited by the greed which
structures his life. Sorry I couldn't think of a nicer word for the
profit motive, but that's the stone truth on textbook accounts.
> > Do you think this is a profitable activity?
> >
> When it is for liberty, yes.
Uhh, recur to initial argument.
> > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> >
> > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
>
> It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year (Tax)
> to go to people who do not deserve it.
Oh, so you're a moral expert, too. Is there any limit to the
skill-set of a bourgeois? I guess you already answered that.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > I understand the rich aspect just fine by my lights (has a lot more to
> > > > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're not
> > > > doing too much labor).
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > Rich people have a lot of money, you know.
>
> Really? Alert the press, rich people have a lot of money.
Is understatement not a big deal where you are? I know a couple
places like that, but it'd behoove you to learn to recognize it.
> > They didn't necessarily work for it:
>
> Really? Then how the hell did they get it and can you tell me where I may
> get some of this free money? where they in charge of a communist dctatorship
> where they murdered all the people and took all the money?
Mom and Dad gave it to them. Sometimes they even give you good stuff.
> MPL=RW, it is a mathematically proven fact. The work they do simply isn't
> worth much.
Mathematical facts earn their keep in proofs, not the other way around
> > > > And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > > > away with this discussion
> > >
> > > Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
> > > confronted with that fact.
> >
> > The telepsychiatrist is in. I am actually reassured by this, but
> > would mention to you that however much I might want to steal it's
> > actually likely you've "stolen" more than me in my lifetime, as you live
> in New Zealand which has a handsome welfare state.
>
> Actually I actively deny government assistance, I refused student allowace
> and have never been on the dole. So if you have accepted even $1 from the
> government then you have proven yourself wrong. You now owe me an appology.
I didn't have a student allowance to refuse; I got a competitive
scholarship, and there is no dole to be on. But whether you are NZ's
#1 classical-liberal badass or not the welfare state structures your
life in ways which protect you as well as hamper your Randian dreams.
In terms of an apology: grow up, stranger.
> > The US can be a much tougher place than other developed countries, and you
> can
> > believe it without necessarily modifying your assumptions about my
> > personality. (We've never met and spoken, right?)
> >
> It is a pathetic social welfare state.
It is indeed a pathetic social welfare state; you would probably
groove on it until you got messed up somehow.
>
> I couldn't be bothered as it is an irrelevancy.
I wish I could feel the same about some things.
Jeff Rubard
I guess I wouldn't know anything about that, huh?
> > I'm
> > serious here.
>
> And so am I
Yeah, I can tell.
> > And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
> > as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery.
>
> In the free market there is no slavery, in communism the productive are
> slaves to the unproductive.
That's a very interesting sentence on a number of levels.
> > That's what
> > happens when you can't drive a good bargain
>
> Can't drive a good bargain? With whom are we bargaining?
A buyer, not an employee.
> > and yet do not care for
> > some reason;
>
> If someone does not care then what is their problem?
Not a problem for them, true.
> > which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
>
> How so?
Refer to the ambiguity present in your definitions of the free market
and communism.
> > In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all things
> > considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not domination
> > and control).
>
> Free beyond your menas is impossible as freedom is not an outcome of
> economics etc, it is the state in which you exist.
Oh, really? Doesn't have anything to do with natural gifts?
Classical liberalism has changed since I last checked in with it.
Stuart Hawkins
wrong.
> > Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the sum
of
> > their product, then take the situation where he does management and sum
the
> > product of the workers and the difference between the two is the
marginal
> > product attributeable to his management.
>
> "Marginal product" == subjective value.
How did you come to this conclusion? It is a physcially measureable value
and as such can not be subjective.
> I know whereof I speak.
Obviously you don't.
> Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
> ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
>
Well I have proven you wrong, get over it.
> > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being productive?
To
> > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does not
> > actually build them etc.
>
> The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has not
> been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
>
But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
> > To paraphrase Ayn Rand. The product of any worker is limited by the
capacity
> > of their body, whereas the productivity of the manager is limited by the
> > capacity of his mind and the benefits of his product are extended to all
> > those below him who benefit from his ideas.
>
> The productivity of the manager is limited by the greed which
> structures his life. Sorry I couldn't think of a nicer word for the
> profit motive, but that's the stone truth on textbook accounts.
>
Ohh yes I am Mr. Rubard, what I say is true even if you have disproven it
with facts.
All you have done is say, this is the way it is; you have not even given a
reason why you are right.
> > > Do you think this is a profitable activity?
> > >
> > When it is for liberty, yes.
>
> Uhh, recur to initial argument.
>
Not at all, you asked a question and I answered it.
> > > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> > >
> > > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
> >
> > It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year
(Tax)
> > to go to people who do not deserve it.
>
> Oh, so you're a moral expert, too.
Yes I am.
> Is there any limit to the skill-set of a bourgeois?
I have a menial labour job, you have again proven yourself to be a fool.
> I guess you already answered that.
Well I have answered everything you have said.
Stuart Hawkins
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3faf...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > I understand the rich aspect just fine by my lights (has a lot
more to
> > > > > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're
not
> > > > > doing too much labor).
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > Rich people have a lot of money, you know.
> >
> > Really? Alert the press, rich people have a lot of money.
>
> Is understatement not a big deal where you are?
That is a very interesting sentence, I am sure you missed it but hey.
> I know a couple
> places like that, but it'd behoove you to learn to recognize it.
>
Stating the obvious is a total waste of time, let me demonstrate.
I am typing my reply and the language I am using is english.
Did that help anyone? No, so why the hell do it?
> > > They didn't necessarily work for it:
> >
> > Really? Then how the hell did they get it and can you tell me where I
may
> > get some of this free money? where they in charge of a communist
dctatorship
> > where they murdered all the people and took all the money?
>
> Mom and Dad gave it to them.
It was worked for and earnt by someone who then chose voluntarily to give it
to their children. That is their right. The money was not stolen, it was
earnt and then given freely. If you do not like that then too bad.
> Sometimes they even give you good stuff.
>
And it is their right to do so.
> > MPL=RW, it is a mathematically proven fact. The work they do simply
isn't
> > worth much.
>
> Mathematical facts earn their keep in proofs, not the other way around
>
Mathematical facts are only valid when they are proved and the reverse is
true, but this has no relevance on our discussion. The mathematical fact
that MPL=RW for the profit maximising point has not been drawn into
disrepute, you have done nothing to even argue that it is not correct. All
you have done is say "I think otherwise"
> > > > > And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > > > > away with this discussion
> > > >
> > > > Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
> > > > confronted with that fact.
> > >
> > > The telepsychiatrist is in. I am actually reassured by this, but
> > > would mention to you that however much I might want to steal it's
> > > actually likely you've "stolen" more than me in my lifetime, as you
live
> > in New Zealand which has a handsome welfare state.
> >
> > Actually I actively deny government assistance, I refused student
allowace
> > and have never been on the dole. So if you have accepted even $1 from
the
> > government then you have proven yourself wrong. You now owe me an
appology.
>
> I didn't have a student allowance to refuse; I got a competitive
> scholarship, and there is no dole to be on.
In America? Yes there is, there is an unemployment benefit and as such that
is the dole.
> But whether you are NZ's
> #1 classical-liberal badass or not the welfare state structures your
> life in ways which protect you as well as hamper your Randian dreams.
> In terms of an apology: grow up, stranger.
>
When you rob me of my freedom and give me food, do you help or hurt? The
answer is you hurt.
Whenever you cut the realtionship between effort and reward you harm.
Everything you consider to be a benefit steals something from me. Just goes
to show hhow little you know of Rand.
Right no more pussyfooting around, tell me why you and those like you should
tell me how to live my life? Why should i be forced to look after a starving
man? I didn't make him starve and he is not my responsibility, so why should
I have to help him?
> > > The US can be a much tougher place than other developed countries, and
you
> > can
> > > believe it without necessarily modifying your assumptions about my
> > > personality. (We've never met and spoken, right?)
> > >
> > It is a pathetic social welfare state.
>
> It is indeed a pathetic social welfare state; you would probably
> groove on it until you got messed up somehow.
> >
I would reather die in hunger and pain then accept the stolen product of
another, my misfortune is not their problem.
> > I couldn't be bothered as it is an irrelevancy.
>
> I wish I could feel the same about some things.
But you would be liying
Stuart Hawkins
> > > I'm
> > > serious here.
> >
> > And so am I
>
> Yeah, I can tell.
>
How so? Is it because I have shown you to be wrong at every turn?
> > > And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
> > > as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery.
> >
> > In the free market there is no slavery, in communism the productive are
> > slaves to the unproductive.
>
> That's a very interesting sentence on a number of levels.
>
And? Was there a point to your comment.
> > > That's what
> > > happens when you can't drive a good bargain
> >
> > Can't drive a good bargain? With whom are we bargaining?
>
> A buyer, not an employee.
>
A buyer of what? For is an employer not a buyer of labour?
> > > and yet do not care for
> > > some reason;
> >
> > If someone does not care then what is their problem?
>
> Not a problem for them, true.
>
Then who cares?
> > > which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Refer to the ambiguity present in your definitions of the free market
> and communism.
>
There is no ambiguity in my definitions. The free market is one where the
only act that is disallowed is the initiation of force or fraud. Communism
is the nonsence Marx waffled on about.
> > > In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all things
> > > considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not domination
> > > and control).
> >
> > Free beyond your menas is impossible as freedom is not an outcome of
> > economics etc, it is the state in which you exist.
>
> Oh, really?
Yes.
> Doesn't have anything to do with natural gifts?
No. You are either free or you aren't.
> Classical liberalism has changed since I last checked in with it.
What since never?, fancy that.
Jeff Rubard
Well, a lot of my posts to Usenet are long-form essays, which
ordinarily count as "products" in a very straightforward sense. Are
they products people want to buy? You wouldn't really want to give
those away for free without a reason.
> > > > I'm
> > > > serious here.
> > >
> > > And so am I
> >
> > Yeah, I can tell.
> >
> How so? Is it because I have shown you to be wrong at every turn?
I wish I had learned how to give myself such compliments.
> > > > And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
> > > > as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery.
> > >
> > > In the free market there is no slavery, in communism the productive are
> > > slaves to the unproductive.
> >
> > That's a very interesting sentence on a number of levels.
> >
> And? Was there a point to your comment.
The period is apposite, as the point was the distinction between the
"free market" where there is no slavery and communism where the
productive are slaves to the productive could be merely notional --
nothing changes -- or substantive, pending a change in the definition
of "slavery". Your interpretation of that comment, that people are
substantively freer in a free-market economy than they would be in
another type of arrangement, is "undetermined by the facts" (to use a
phrase from the philosophy of science) -- we don't know about some
types of economic arrangement, and in other types of economic
arrangements certain freedoms were greater (people lived longer in the
Soviet Union than they do in Russia today). In other words, what you
are saying involves value judgments and not merely "proof" that I am
wrong.
> > > > That's what
> > > > happens when you can't drive a good bargain
> > >
> > > Can't drive a good bargain? With whom are we bargaining?
> >
> > A buyer, not an employee.
> >
> A buyer of what? For is an employer not a buyer of labour?
Yes, and thusly they are not really "selling" the employee on
anything, whereas the employee is (continually) selling the employer
on the value of their labor.
Thusly, sometimes managerial types have funny ideas about what
constitutes a good bargain -- they really don't do very much of it.
> > > > and yet do not care for
> > > > some reason;
> > >
> > > If someone does not care then what is their problem?
> >
> > Not a problem for them, true.
> >
> Then who cares?
Other people. Too complicated for people to have different attitudes
which are not clearly divided into right and wrong?
> > > > which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > Refer to the ambiguity present in your definitions of the free market
> > and communism.
> >
> There is no ambiguity in my definitions. The free market is one where the
> only act that is disallowed is the initiation of force or fraud. Communism
> is the nonsence Marx waffled on about.
Well, that's a sort of ideal which is realized nowhere as well.
> > > > In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all things
> > > > considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not domination
> > > > and control).
> > >
> > > Free beyond your menas is impossible as freedom is not an outcome of
> > > economics etc, it is the state in which you exist.
> >
> > Oh, really?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Doesn't have anything to do with natural gifts?
>
> No. You are either free or you aren't.
Well, everybody is supposed supposed to be free in a liberal state,
and have the use of their natural gifts; there is not big sexy Howard
Roark and the herd. When I talked about where big money comes from, I
didn't call inheritance "theft" (although I left the question of the
*money*'s legitimacy open: but if that is case, it is indeed possible
that there could be other things Mom and Dad done gave you which might
be of some use to you as well. In classical-liberal terms, potential
value is not defined in terms of actual (existing) value *at all*;
it's entirely possible somebody could want to pay a million dollars
for the copyright to this email, although right now it's worth nothing
:) But in reality what happens is conservatives surreptitiously make
use of collectivist concepts to give justifications for the continued
success of current "FROMers" no matter what.
> > Classical liberalism has changed since I last checked in with it.
>
> What since never?, fancy that.
This is just cheap.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3faf...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > I understand the rich aspect just fine by my lights (has a lot
> more to
> > > > > > do with TO than FROM, however much effort you're expending you're
> not
> > > > > > doing too much labor).
> > > > >
> > > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > Rich people have a lot of money, you know.
> > >
> > > Really? Alert the press, rich people have a lot of money.
> >
> > Is understatement not a big deal where you are?
>
> That is a very interesting sentence, I am sure you missed it but hey.
>
> > I know a couple
> > places like that, but it'd behoove you to learn to recognize it.
> >
> Stating the obvious is a total waste of time, let me demonstrate.
> I am typing my reply and the language I am using is english.
> Did that help anyone? No, so why the hell do it?
It's surplus-value; sometimes it's a pleasing literary effect (which
see:
Hemingway's fabled response to F. Scott Fitzgerald's comment "the very
rich
are different from you and me").
> > > > They didn't necessarily work for it:
> > >
> > > Really? Then how the hell did they get it and can you tell me where I
> may
> > > get some of this free money? where they in charge of a communist
> dctatorship
> > > where they murdered all the people and took all the money?
> >
> > Mom and Dad gave it to them.
>
> It was worked for and earnt by someone who then chose voluntarily to give it
> to their children. That is their right. The money was not stolen, it was
> earnt and then given freely. If you do not like that then too bad.
That's right, it was Mom and Dad's right, didn't have too much to do
with the kid; and if you don't like whatever hand was dealt anyone in
such a fashion, that's too bad too.
> >
> > Mathematical facts earn their keep in proofs, not the other way around
> >
> Mathematical facts are only valid when they are proved and the reverse is
> true, but this has no relevance on our discussion. The mathematical fact
> that MPL=RW for the profit maximising point has not been drawn into
> disrepute, you have done nothing to even argue that it is not correct. All
> you have done is say "I think otherwise"
Mathematics is nothing but proof: "theorems" are things you prove, and
use to prove other things, not whup people over the head with. The
opportunity to begin a constructive discussion of the relevant
economics has already been.
> > > > > > And Mr. Hawkins, you're attempting to steal
> > > > > > away with this discussion
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all, I am simply pointing out your desire to steal and not be
> > > > > confronted with that fact.
> > > >
> > > > The telepsychiatrist is in. I am actually reassured by this, but
> > > > would mention to you that however much I might want to steal it's
> > > > actually likely you've "stolen" more than me in my lifetime, as you
> live
> > > in New Zealand which has a handsome welfare state.
> > >
> > > Actually I actively deny government assistance, I refused student
> allowace
> > > and have never been on the dole. So if you have accepted even $1 from
> the
> > > government then you have proven yourself wrong. You now owe me an
> appology.
> >
> > I didn't have a student allowance to refuse; I got a competitive
> > scholarship, and there is no dole to be on.
>
> In America? Yes there is, there is an unemployment benefit and as such that
> is the dole.
It's dependent on your old job (partially paid for by the employer,
and paid only to people with a certain tenure who were terminated),
you have to do certain things to get it, and it doesn't last
indefinitely. But I've never had it myself.
> > But whether you are NZ's
> > #1 classical-liberal badass or not the welfare state structures your
> > life in ways which protect you as well as hamper your Randian dreams.
> > In terms of an apology: grow up, stranger.
> >
> When you rob me of my freedom and give me food, do you help or hurt? The
> answer is you hurt.
> Whenever you cut the realtionship between effort and reward you harm.
> Everything you consider to be a benefit steals something from me. Just goes
> to show hhow little you know of Rand.
> Right no more pussyfooting around, tell me why you and those like you should
> tell me how to live my life? Why should i be forced to look after a starving
> man? I didn't make him starve and he is not my responsibility, so why should
> I have to help him?
You can't kick him. You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
That's all.
> > > > The US can be a much tougher place than other developed countries> > I wish I could feel the same about some things.
>
> But you would be liying
Well, thank you for moving that on into the future.
Jeff Rubard
Well, due to concerns arising from underdetermination there's no such
thing as all-out-conclusive disproof in social sciences.
> > > Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the sum
> of
> > > their product, then take the situation where he does management and sum
> the
> > > product of the workers and the difference between the two is the
> marginal
> > > product attributeable to his management.
> >
> > "Marginal product" == subjective value.
>
> How did you come to this conclusion? It is a physcially measureable value
> and as such can not be subjective.
Not really, marginal value is subjective utility, it's not generally
defined in terms of what is physically produced (that's the "labor
theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for), and never
*conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume* that
a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and is
fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about anyone
else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
> > I know whereof I speak.
>
> Obviously you don't.
Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
> > Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
> > ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
> >
> Well I have proven you wrong, get over it.
I hope nobody else noticed.
> > > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being productive?
> To
> > > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does not
> > > actually build them etc.
> >
> > The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has not
> > been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> >
> But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
Yeah, he does and makes stuff rather than manage the company's
possessions actual and virtual, as the manager does.
> > > > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> > > >
> > > > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
> > >
> > > It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year
> (Tax)
> > > to go to people who do not deserve it.
> >
> > Oh, so you're a moral expert, too.
>
> Yes I am.
Awesome. Worry about your own life, until we have a matter of
*mutual* interest.
> > Is there any limit to the skill-set of a bourgeois?
>
> I have a menial labour job, you have again proven yourself to be a fool.
Are they hiring? I can move.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fb0...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fac...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > It is incompaitable with freedom, for their need is not their
> > providence.
> > > > > > Those that need more than they produce must then take from those
who
> > produce
> > > > > > more than they need and as such those others are dominated and
made
> > slaves,
> > > > > > their freedom to keep what they produce is taken from them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since when does divine providence limn the boundaries of freedom?
> > > >
> > > > There is no such thing as the divine, I refer to the ability of an
> > > > individual to produce.
> > >
> > > I guess I wouldn't know anything about that, huh?
> > >
> > You have proven you do not in other posts.
>
> Well, a lot of my posts to Usenet are long-form essays, which
> ordinarily count as "products" in a very straightforward sense. Are
> they products people want to buy? You wouldn't really want to give
> those away for free without a reason.
>
Well nobody would pay for the nonsence you write.
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > serious here.
> > > >
> > > > And so am I
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can tell.
> > >
> > How so? Is it because I have shown you to be wrong at every turn?
>
> I wish I had learned how to give myself such compliments.
>
Instead you learnt how to make claims with no backing and ignore others
reasons and explainations.
> > > > > And "dominance" is only prior in the order of thought,
> > > > > as we Marxists say, to the social institution of slavery.
> > > >
> > > > In the free market there is no slavery, in communism the productive
are
> > > > slaves to the unproductive.
> > >
> > > That's a very interesting sentence on a number of levels.
> > >
> > And? Was there a point to your comment.
>
> The period is apposite, as the point was the distinction between the
> "free market" where there is no slavery and communism where the
> productive are slaves to the productive could be merely notional --
> nothing changes -- or substantive, pending a change in the definition
> of "slavery". Your interpretation of that comment, that people are
> substantively freer in a free-market economy than they would be in
> another type of arrangement, is "undetermined by the facts" (to use a
> phrase from the philosophy of science) -- we don't know about some
> types of economic arrangement, and in other types of economic
> arrangements certain freedoms were greater (people lived longer in the
> Soviet Union than they do in Russia today). In other words, what you
> are saying involves value judgments and not merely "proof" that I am
> wrong.
>
What nonsence Russia is not and has never been a free market, please go away
with your 'straw man' arguments.
Fact is in Soviet Russia if I spoke out against the government I would find
myself in jail, in a free market I could tell the government to their faces
that they were a useless buch of time wasting morons and all that would
happen is that they would ignore me or shout something back.
> > > > > That's what
> > > > > happens when you can't drive a good bargain
> > > >
> > > > Can't drive a good bargain? With whom are we bargaining?
> > >
> > > A buyer, not an employee.
> > >
> > A buyer of what? For is an employer not a buyer of labour?
>
> Yes, and thusly they are not really "selling" the employee on
> anything, whereas the employee is (continually) selling the employer
> on the value of their labor.
No, as I have told you before RW=MPL
> Thusly, sometimes managerial types have funny ideas about what
> constitutes a good bargain -- they really don't do very much of it.
>
Simply saying that is the case does not make it so Mr. Rubard.
> > > > > and yet do not care for
> > > > > some reason;
> > > >
> > > > If someone does not care then what is their problem?
> > >
> > > Not a problem for them, true.
> > >
> > Then who cares?
>
> Other people.
If those involved don't care then it is nobody elses business.
> Too complicated for people to have different attitudes
> which are not clearly divided into right and wrong?
>
There is only right and wrong, if people do not see them as such that just
means that they are mistaken.
> > > > > which brings us around to "compatibility" issues again.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > Refer to the ambiguity present in your definitions of the free market
> > > and communism.
> > >
> > There is no ambiguity in my definitions. The free market is one where
the
> > only act that is disallowed is the initiation of force or fraud.
Communism
> > is the nonsence Marx waffled on about.
>
> Well, that's a sort of ideal which is realized nowhere as well.
>
Actually the soviet union came close and see how it failed, America (while
miles away from a free market) came (past tense) closer to a free market
than other countries and see how it prospered. Infact if you look at a graph
placing countries in order of how close they come to a free market and
compare it to a graph showing how rich countries are and you will see they
correlate almost perfectly (believe me I have done it)
> > > > > In other words, you really can be "free beyond your means", all
things
> > > > > considered, and this is the real communist problematic (not
domination
> > > > > and control).
> > > >
> > > > Free beyond your menas is impossible as freedom is not an outcome of
> > > > economics etc, it is the state in which you exist.
> > >
> > > Oh, really?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Doesn't have anything to do with natural gifts?
> >
> > No. You are either free or you aren't.
>
> Well, everybody is supposed supposed to be free in a liberal state,
What do you mean by a liberal state? Because my understanding is that
regulation binds everyone.
> and have the use of their natural gifts; there is not big sexy Howard
> Roark and the herd. When I talked about where big money comes from, I
> didn't call inheritance "theft" (although I left the question of the
> *money*'s legitimacy open:
then why did you mention it? Chaff perhaps? Throwing out useless garbage to
protect your vulnerable core.
> but if that is case, it is indeed possible
> that there could be other things Mom and Dad done gave you which might
> be of some use to you as well.
And? They GAVE it, didn't they?
> In classical-liberal terms, potential
> value is not defined in terms of actual (existing) value *at all*;
> it's entirely possible somebody could want to pay a million dollars
> for the copyright to this email, although right now it's worth nothing
> :)
Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. This means that
it's present value is atlest a million dollars, it does not matter when it's
value is realised. Are you familiar with the concept of the time value of
money?
> But in reality what happens is conservatives surreptitiously make
> use of collectivist concepts to give justifications for the continued
> success of current "FROMers" no matter what.
>
Conservatives are collectivists, Liberals are collectivists. Liberals and
conservatives are simply two sides of the same coin.
> > > Classical liberalism has changed since I last checked in with it.
> >
> > What since never?, fancy that.
>
> This is just cheap.
Sigh
Stuart Hawkins
utterlty fails to explain what happens in the real world it is considered
disproven. Again you have shown you do not possess even the most basic
concept of what we are discussing.
> > > > Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the
sum
> > of
> > > > their product, then take the situation where he does management and
sum
> > the
> > > > product of the workers and the difference between the two is the
> > marginal
> > > > product attributeable to his management.
> > >
> > > "Marginal product" == subjective value.
> >
> > How did you come to this conclusion? It is a physcially measureable
value
> > and as such can not be subjective.
>
> Not really, marginal value is subjective utility,
No it isn't. In the example I gave above we saw the marginal product of the
manager was the difference between the two scenarios, it was objective, it
was a measureable value.
> it's not generally
> defined in terms of what is physically produced
Yes it is, that is exactly what it is.
> (that's the "labor
> theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
And here you are liying again.
> and never
> *conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume* that
> a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and is
> fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about anyone
> else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
>
That isn't even relevant to what we are talking about. What you have written
directly above does not relate to marginal products in any way shape or
form.
Do you understand what marginal product refers to?
> > > I know whereof I speak.
> >
> > Obviously you don't.
>
> Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
>
Very well.
> > > Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
> > > ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
> > >
> > Well I have proven you wrong, get over it.
>
> I hope nobody else noticed.
>
Anyone who read it would have noticed
> > > > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being
productive?
> > To
> > > > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does
not
> > > > actually build them etc.
> > >
> > > The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has not
> > > been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> > >
> > But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
>
> Yeah, he does and makes stuff rather than manage the company's
> possessions actual and virtual, as the manager does.
>
But his management allows those working under him to be more productive,
this means he is responsible for that extra production. I have again proven
that you are wrong.
>
> > > > > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> > > > >
> > > > > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
> > > >
> > > > It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year
> > (Tax)
> > > > to go to people who do not deserve it.
> > >
> > > Oh, so you're a moral expert, too.
> >
> > Yes I am.
>
> Awesome. Worry about your own life, until we have a matter of
> *mutual* interest.
>
Your life is not my responsibility, to be moral our interaction must be
completely voluntary.
> > > Is there any limit to the skill-set of a bourgeois?
> >
> > I have a menial labour job, you have again proven yourself to be a fool.
>
> Are they hiring?
Yes they are actually.
> I can move.
I doubt they would want a communist, from the ones we have had working there
communists are incrediable lazy and stupid.
Stuart Hawkins
No it is not, It has no vlaue.
> sometimes it's a pleasing literary effect
Not to me.
>(which
> see:
> Hemingway's fabled response to F. Scott Fitzgerald's comment "the very
> rich
> are different from you and me").
>
Why?
> > > > > They didn't necessarily work for it:
> > > >
> > > > Really? Then how the hell did they get it and can you tell me where
I
> > may
> > > > get some of this free money? where they in charge of a communist
> > dctatorship
> > > > where they murdered all the people and took all the money?
> > >
> > > Mom and Dad gave it to them.
> >
> > It was worked for and earnt by someone who then chose voluntarily to
give it
> > to their children. That is their right. The money was not stolen, it was
> > earnt and then given freely. If you do not like that then too bad.
>
> That's right, it was Mom and Dad's right,
exactly.
> didn't have too much to do
> with the kid;
Nor should it.
> and if you don't like whatever hand was dealt anyone in
> such a fashion, that's too bad too.
>
Arghh sour grapes.
Well what other people do is none of your business.
I currently save 55.9% of my net wages to create something to give to my
child. I work 53+ hours a week and spend less that $10 per week on myself in
order to save that much because I want to give money to my child. Are you
now saying that other people have a right to complain about me choosing to
do that?
> > >
> > > Mathematical facts earn their keep in proofs, not the other way around
> > >
> > Mathematical facts are only valid when they are proved and the reverse
is
> > true, but this has no relevance on our discussion. The mathematical fact
> > that MPL=RW for the profit maximising point has not been drawn into
> > disrepute, you have done nothing to even argue that it is not correct.
All
> > you have done is say "I think otherwise"
>
> Mathematics is nothing but proof: "theorems" are things you prove, and
> use to prove other things, not whup people over the head with.
But they can be used for that, especially when someone argues something
based upon the premise that that is not the case.
> The
> opportunity to begin a constructive discussion of the relevant
> economics has already been.
>
Why bother you have already demonstrated that you are incapiable of an
economics discussion by what you have written above. RW=MPL proves that the
surpluss value of labour does not exist and as such it is highly relevant in
any discussion about surpluss values in labour. Additionally it is a point
of economic fact, to disallow it in a discussion of economics would be
tantamount to disallowing someone to talk about anything to do with atoms in
a discussion of nuclear power.
Is part of it paid by the state?
> you have to do certain things to get it, and it doesn't last
> indefinitely. But I've never had it myself.
>
So what the conditions of it are irrelevant, that fact it exists means it is
a dole.
> > > But whether you are NZ's
> > > #1 classical-liberal badass or not the welfare state structures your
> > > life in ways which protect you as well as hamper your Randian dreams.
> > > In terms of an apology: grow up, stranger.
> > >
> > When you rob me of my freedom and give me food, do you help or hurt? The
> > answer is you hurt.
> > Whenever you cut the realtionship between effort and reward you harm.
> > Everything you consider to be a benefit steals something from me. Just
goes
> > to show hhow little you know of Rand.
> > Right no more pussyfooting around, tell me why you and those like you
should
> > tell me how to live my life? Why should i be forced to look after a
starving
> > man? I didn't make him starve and he is not my responsibility, so why
should
> > I have to help him?
>
> You can't kick him.
The non-initataion of force principle prevents me from doing that anyway,
all I would do is leave him alone.
> You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
> his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
> That's all.
>
If I did as I wanted, how would I be kicking him? Come on back up your
waffle, how would my actions ammount to kicking him? Explain exactly how,
without the why you have mothing at all.
Your welfare state and communism would be the ones doing the kicking,
kicking people like me in order to supply him with food and money, that I
worked for no less.
> > > > > The US can be a much tougher place than other developed countries>
> I wish I could feel the same about some things.
> >
> > But you would be liying
>
> Well, thank you for moving that on into the future.
Yes the things you believe to be irrelevancies are infact quite relevant.
Jeff Rubard
Well, then where does that place your proven fact of mathematical
economics?
It's true I don't understand a lot of what you say.
> > > > > Take the situation where he does not do any management and see the
> sum
> of
> > > > > their product, then take the situation where he does management and
> sum
> the
> > > > > product of the workers and the difference between the two is the
> marginal
> > > > > product attributeable to his management.
> > > >
> > > > "Marginal product" == subjective value.
> > >
> > > How did you come to this conclusion? It is a physcially measureable
> value
> > > and as such can not be subjective.
> >
> > Not really, marginal value is subjective utility,
>
> No it isn't. In the example I gave above we saw the marginal product of the
> manager was the difference between the two scenarios, it was objective, it
> was a measureable value.
The above statement by me was not a controversial statement.
> > it's not generally
> > defined in terms of what is physically produced
>
> Yes it is, that is exactly what it is.
No.
> > (that's the "labor
> > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
>
> And here you are liying again.
Quit bulling.
> > and never
> > *conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume* that
> > a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and is
> > fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about anyone
> > else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
> >
> That isn't even relevant to what we are talking about. What you have written
> directly above does not relate to marginal products in any way shape or
> form.
> Do you understand what marginal product refers to?
It's a pretty textbook version of marginalism in its redone
decision-theoretic form.
> > > > I know whereof I speak.
> > >
> > > Obviously you don't.
> >
> > Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
> >
> Very well.
You like that from the people up top, I see.
> > > > Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
> > > > ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
> > > >
> > > Well I have proven you wrong, get over it.
> >
> > I hope nobody else noticed.
> >
> Anyone who read it would have noticed
That's an interesting statement; it might even be irrelevant, and
therefore telling in some true way.
> > > > > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being
> productive?
> To
> > > > > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he does
> not
> > > > > actually build them etc.
> > > >
> > > > The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has not
> > > > been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> > > >
> > > But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
> >
> > Yeah, he does and makes stuff rather than manage the company's
> > possessions actual and virtual, as the manager does.
> >
> But his management allows those working under him to be more productive,
> this means he is responsible for that extra production. I have again proven
> that you are wrong.
So our ueber-manage is responsible for what other people do, and
deserves the credit for their labor. That would be pretty special, if
it were really possible.
> > > > > > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every year
> (Tax)
> > > > > to go to people who do not deserve it.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so you're a moral expert, too.
> > >
> > > Yes I am.
> >
> > Awesome. Worry about your own life, until we have a matter of
> > *mutual* interest.
> >
> Your life is not my responsibility, to be moral our interaction must be
> completely voluntary.
Why are you hanging out on alt.politics.communism? (I ask because
your life *is* my responsibility, brother.)
> > > > Is there any limit to the skill-set of a bourgeois?
> > >
> > > I have a menial labour job, you have again proven yourself to be a fool.
> >
> > Are they hiring?
>
> Yes they are actually.
That's good, not so much here.
> > I can move.
>
> I doubt they would want a communist, from the ones we have had working there
> communists are incrediable lazy and stupid.
It's true, it's a group you generalize about any way you like.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb0...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3faf...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > such a fashion, that's too bad too.
> >
> Arghh sour grapes.
> Well what other people do is none of your business.
> I currently save 55.9% of my net wages to create something to give to my
> child. I work 53+ hours a week and spend less that $10 per week on myself in
> order to save that much because I want to give money to my child. Are you
> now saying that other people have a right to complain about me choosing to
> do that?
I really don't have too much more to say to you, but I'm going to pop
this comment. What I said was the obverse of sour grapes, more like
"making a virtue of necessity": do what you can with what you have,
whether you have a little or a lot. That *includes* the opposite of
sour grapes, people who have something worth having; and saying shit
like "you're just jealous" or "resentful" or "bitter" only confirms
the existing order as righteous (and in its weaker aspects). It
doesn't clear anything up at all.
> > You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
> > his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
> > That's all.
> >
> If I did as I wanted, how would I be kicking him? Come on back up your
> waffle, how would my actions ammount to kicking him? Explain exactly how,
> without the why you have mothing at all.
> Your welfare state and communism would be the ones doing the kicking,
> kicking people like me in order to supply him with food and money, that I
> worked for no less.
You can't misrepresent someone's labor-power by slandering or libeling
them; you're not legally allowed to, and even if you think the law
sucks violations of it would involve non-consensuality (breach of
contract in intention, things people might possibly agree to). Does
it happen? Yeah. Does it necessarily hurt weak people? No.
Stuart Hawkins
to be
> > > > wrong.
> > >
> > > Well, due to concerns arising from underdetermination there's no such
> > > thing as all-out-conclusive disproof in social sciences.
> > >
> > Actually you can only disprove something in social science, you see when
it
> > utterlty fails to explain what happens in the real world it is
considered
> > disproven. Again you have shown you do not possess even the most basic
> > concept of what we are discussing.
>
> Well, then where does that place your proven fact of mathematical
> economics?
As I stated before empirical studies have shown its validity so well that it
is universially accepted, please try to keep up Mr. Rubard.
> It's true I don't understand a lot of what you say.
>
Well atleast you are man enough to admitt when you are outclassed.
> > > > > > Take the situation where he does not do any management and see
the
> > sum
> > of
> > > > > > their product, then take the situation where he does management
and
> > sum
> > the
> > > > > > product of the workers and the difference between the two is the
> > marginal
> > > > > > product attributeable to his management.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Marginal product" == subjective value.
> > > >
> > > > How did you come to this conclusion? It is a physcially measureable
> > value
> > > > and as such can not be subjective.
> > >
> > > Not really, marginal value is subjective utility,
> >
> > No it isn't. In the example I gave above we saw the marginal product of
the
> > manager was the difference between the two scenarios, it was objective,
it
> > was a measureable value.
>
> The above statement by me was not a controversial statement.
>
Yes it was, you said '"Marginal product" == subjective value.'" I replied by
disproving that statement. Marginal product is objective and totaly
measureable.
> > > it's not generally
> > > defined in terms of what is physically produced
> >
> > Yes it is, that is exactly what it is.
>
> No.
>
Actually it is, hence marginal PRODUCT. It's a fact, one you can not dispell
by simply disagreeing with it.
> > > (that's the "labor
> > > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
> >
> > And here you are liying again.
>
> Quit bulling.
>
Who's bulling? What am I doing to bully anyone?
> > > and never
> > > *conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume* that
> > > a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and is
> > > fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about anyone
> > > else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
> > >
> > That isn't even relevant to what we are talking about. What you have
written
> > directly above does not relate to marginal products in any way shape or
> > form.
> > Do you understand what marginal product refers to?
>
> It's a pretty textbook version of marginalism in its redone
> decision-theoretic form.
>
I asked you a simple question, do you think you could give a relevant
answer?
What you have written is nothing but waffling nonsence.
> > > > > I know whereof I speak.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you don't.
> > >
> > > Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
> > >
> > Very well.
>
> You like that from the people up top, I see.
>
What? Is that supposed to make no sence whatsoever?
> > > > > Labor does not involve creation of subjective values; that's the
> > > > > ripoff, management is supposed to be labor too and better at it.
> > > > >
> > > > Well I have proven you wrong, get over it.
> > >
> > > I hope nobody else noticed.
> > >
> > Anyone who read it would have noticed
>
> That's an interesting statement; it might even be irrelevant, and
> therefore telling in some true way.
>
Read above.
> > > > > > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being
> > productive?
> > To
> > > > > > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he
does
> > not
> > > > > > actually build them etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has
not
> > > > > been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> > > > >
> > > > But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
> > >
> > > Yeah, he does and makes stuff rather than manage the company's
> > > possessions actual and virtual, as the manager does.
> > >
> > But his management allows those working under him to be more productive,
> > this means he is responsible for that extra production. I have again
proven
> > that you are wrong.
>
> So our ueber-manage is responsible for what other people do, and
> deserves the credit for their labor. That would be pretty special, if
> it were really possible.
>
If he did not do the organising then they would produce less, therefore the
production gained by his organisation is his marginal product. Come on just
try to deny it, fact is you can't and that is why you haven't even tried.
> > > > > > > > I should never again be a FROMer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It really wouldn't bother me if you'd go back to that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would bother me, I have money stolen by the government every
year
> > (Tax)
> > > > > > to go to people who do not deserve it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, so you're a moral expert, too.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I am.
> > >
> > > Awesome. Worry about your own life, until we have a matter of
> > > *mutual* interest.
> > >
> > Your life is not my responsibility, to be moral our interaction must be
> > completely voluntary.
>
> Why are you hanging out on alt.politics.communism?
To do as I have done with you, to show that you are devoid of ideas and are
completely wrong.
> (I ask because
> your life *is* my responsibility, brother.)
>
Why?
> > > > > Is there any limit to the skill-set of a bourgeois?
> > > >
> > > > I have a menial labour job, you have again proven yourself to be a
fool.
> > >
> > > Are they hiring?
> >
> > Yes they are actually.
>
> That's good, not so much here.
>
Advocate the removal of the minimum wage and other compliance cost and oh
yeah abolish leaglised theft (tax), that will result in a large increase in
jobs.
> > > I can move.
> >
> > I doubt they would want a communist, from the ones we have had working
there
> > communists are incrediable lazy and stupid.
>
> It's true, it's a group you generalize about any way you like.
That is not a generalisation, to say that all communists hired by the
company were lazy and stupid is a statement of fact, to say they are
representative of communists in general is either statistically valid or
invalid. There is no generalisation at all.
Stuart Hawkins
nonsence, it is now clear to all who lost this discussion.
BTW implying that it is unfair for some to have an inherritance while others
do not is sour grapes.
> > > You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
> > > his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
> > > That's all.
> > >
> > If I did as I wanted, how would I be kicking him? Come on back up your
> > waffle, how would my actions ammount to kicking him? Explain exactly
how,
> > without the why you have mothing at all.
> > Your welfare state and communism would be the ones doing the kicking,
> > kicking people like me in order to supply him with food and money, that
I
> > worked for no less.
>
> You can't misrepresent someone's labor-power by slandering or libeling
> them; you're not legally allowed to,
How does this relate to my question? Do you really think you can answer my
questions with answers to other questions?
You said that you can't kick someone as the response to my statement that i
should not be forced to help a starving man.
> and even if you think the law
> sucks violations of it would involve non-consensuality (breach of
> contract in intention, things people might possibly agree to).
Breach of what contract? If the law violates my rights as an individual then
it has no reason to exist and violating it is a defensive action.
> Does
> it happen? Yeah. Does it necessarily hurt weak people? No.
Whatever.
What happened to everything else I wrote, couldn't answer it huh? Not that
you answered anything else I have written
Jeff Rubard
Ok, just let me know when we're at war with Eurasia (as far I know,
that's not right now).
> > > > (that's the "labor
> > > > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
> > >
> > > And here you are liying again.
> >
> > Quit bulling.
> >
> Who's bulling? What am I doing to bully anyone?
Bulling == spreading bullshit. Fertilizer, or pleasant-smelling
lubricant? Depends.
> > > > and never
> > > > *conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume* that
> > > > a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and is
> > > > fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about anyone
> > > > else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
> > > >
> > > That isn't even relevant to what we are talking about. What you have
> written
> > > directly above does not relate to marginal products in any way shape or
> > > form.
> > > Do you understand what marginal product refers to?
> >
> > It's a pretty textbook version of marginalism in its redone
> > decision-theoretic form.
> >
> I asked you a simple question, do you think you could give a relevant
> answer?
> What you have written is nothing but waffling nonsence.
That's a relevant answer: you're leaving a hundred years of economics
out, including economics you would like once you understood how your
current terminology is limited. I'm not going to apologize for
knowing something you don't.
> > > > > > I know whereof I speak.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously you don't.
> > > >
> > > > Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
> > > >
> > > Very well.
> >
> > You like that from the people up top, I see.
> >
> What? Is that supposed to make no sence whatsoever?
Yes.
> > > > > > > Does the man who designs the machines they use, is he being
> > > productive?
> > > To
> > > > > > > be consistent you must say that he has produced nothing for he
> does
> not
> > > > > > > actually build them etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The man who designs machines is an engineer and historically has
> not
> > > > > > been handsomely compensated; he is at any rate not a manager.
> > > > > >
> > > > > But he does not truly produce anything ut ideas, as a manager does
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, he does and makes stuff rather than manage the company's
> > > > possessions actual and virtual, as the manager does.
> > > >
> > > But his management allows those working under him to be more productive,
> > > this means he is responsible for that extra production. I have again
> proven
> > > that you are wrong.
> >
> > So our ueber-manager is responsible for what other people do, and
> > deserves the credit for their labor. That would be pretty special, if
> > it were really possible.
> >
> If he did not do the organising then they would produce less, therefore the
> production gained by his organisation is his marginal product. Come on just
> try to deny it, fact is you can't and that is why you haven't even tried.
Managers perform a necessary task; but they do not perform the task of
the laborer, in thought or in reality. I'm not going to allow that
they work twice as hard as everyone and thusly have the right to the
mantle of labor as well as the deep pockets of management.
> > Why are you hanging out on alt.politics.communism?
>
> To do as I have done with you, to show that you are devoid of ideas and are
> completely wrong.
You know, under ordinary circumstances when people pay themselves
empty compliments which denigrate others I don't even mind, but I'm
getting kind of fond of this newsgroup and tired of your routine.
> > (I ask because
> > your life *is* my responsibility, brother.)
> >
> Why?
All men are brothers. I mean it, too.
> > > > I can move.
> > >
> > > I doubt they would want a communist, from the ones we have had working
> there
> > > communists are incrediable lazy and stupid.
> >
> > It's true, it's a group you generalize about any way you like.
>
> That is not a generalisation, to say that all communists hired by the
> company were lazy and stupid is a statement of fact, to say they are
> representative of communists in general is either statistically valid or
> invalid. There is no generalisation at all.
I think you're making part of this up; I doubt these people were
really communists, but I believe they were charged full price for
something like that.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb0...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3faf...@clear.net.nz>...
> > I really don't have too much more to say to you, but I'm going to pop
> > this comment. What I said was the obverse of sour grapes, more like
> > "making a virtue of necessity": do what you can with what you have,
> > whether you have a little or a lot. That *includes* the opposite of
> > sour grapes, people who have something worth having; and saying shit
> > like "you're just jealous" or "resentful" or "bitter" only confirms
> > the existing order as righteous (and in its weaker aspects). It
> > doesn't clear anything up at all.
> >
> More pointless waffle, you deleted the other points then made up pointless
> nonsence, it is now clear to all who lost this discussion.
> BTW implying that it is unfair for some to have an inherritance while others
> do not is sour grapes.
I didn't say that, but you're trying to charge me for that. What I
did say was that there can be some question about where the money came
from; I personally don't think Pablo Escobar's children would be
entitled to much except heavy-duty witness protection from all and
sundry. Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can work
with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering schemes,
where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to pay
more than a fraction of what they were paying for the infrastructure
they use most heavily, are disgusting).
> > > > You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
> > > > his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
> > > > That's all.
> > > >
> > > If I did as I wanted, how would I be kicking him? Come on back up your
> > > waffle, how would my actions ammount to kicking him? Explain exactly
> how,
> > > without the why you have mothing at all.
> > > Your welfare state and communism would be the ones doing the kicking,
> > > kicking people like me in order to supply him with food and money, that
> I
> > > worked for no less.
> >
> > You can't misrepresent someone's labor-power by slandering or libeling
> > them; you're not legally allowed to,
>
> How does this relate to my question? Do you really think you can answer my
> questions with answers to other questions?
> You said that you can't kick someone as the response to my statement that i
> should not be forced to help a starving man.
You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down in
life generally. It's really illegal in any common-law system, as
concerns about your own liberty never outrank the liberty of others
(although they can easily "outweigh" it).
> > and even if you think the law
> > sucks violations of it would involve non-consensuality (breach of
> > contract in intention, things people might possibly agree to).
>
> Breach of what contract? If the law violates my rights as an individual then
> it has no reason to exist and violating it is a defensive action.
Breach of potential contract between them and other people (which is a
matter of civil society, not law per se, and encroachment upon which
violates the rights of others); but I guess anything counts as
defensive these days.
> > Does
> > it happen? Yeah. Does it necessarily hurt weak people? No.
>
> Whatever.
> What happened to everything else I wrote, couldn't answer it huh? Not that
> you answered anything else I have written
If I have to say it, I'm thrashing you pretty thoroughly; show this
thread to your boss if you want a "material" opinion. I don't like to
say that kind of thing, but sometimes people really do push too hard.
Jeff Rubard
> >
> Well atleast you are man enough to admitt when you are outclassed.
I missed this comment, but I think I'll address it. No, I'm really
too much (and I actually feel pretty bad about this for
gender-critique reasons). I've never met a man I didn't think was
fundamentally weaker than me in some important way, I always think my
"superiors" (like you) are skating on this, and I've never had this
disproven to my satisfaction (or general satisfaction, for that
matter). It's kind of a sticky wicket, actually, systematically
taking responsibility for your actions in their oppressive aspect; not
recommended for the totally excellent.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fb4...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fb3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
me
> > to be
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, due to concerns arising from underdetermination there's no
such
> > > > > thing as all-out-conclusive disproof in social sciences.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually you can only disprove something in social science, you see
when
> > it
> > > > utterlty fails to explain what happens in the real world it is
> > considered
> > > > disproven. Again you have shown you do not possess even the most
basic
> > > > concept of what we are discussing.
> > >
> > > Well, then where does that place your proven fact of mathematical
> > > economics?
> >
> > As I stated before empirical studies have shown its validity so well
that it
> > is universially accepted, please try to keep up Mr. Rubard.
>
> Ok, just let me know when we're at war with Eurasia (as far I know,
> that's not right now).
>
independent studies that show the validity of a mathematical formula to the
real world is in any way similar to the lies made up by a communist/fascist
government? If so I would be gald to hearyour reasoning, failure to do so
will mean you have retracted your implication and are admitting you just
said it because you knew you were wrong and didn't want to admitt it.
> > > > > (that's the "labor
> > > > > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
> > > >
> > > > And here you are liying again.
> > >
> > > Quit bulling.
> > >
> > Who's bulling? What am I doing to bully anyone?
>
> Bulling == spreading bullshit. Fertilizer, or pleasant-smelling
> lubricant? Depends.
>
Then you are the one who is bulling, you have given no reasons for your
statements on the other hand I have backed mine with reason and facts. It is
exteremly easy to do what you are doing, all you need to do is say your
wrong and never back it up; if that is the level of your argument then it is
clear that it is who that is wrong.
> > > > > and never
> > > > > *conclusively* defined in terms of that; you don't just *assume*
that
> > > > > a product or service is outside the realm of saleable products and
is
> > > > > fooling around, because you don't really have to worry about
anyone
> > > > > else and you don't really know all the angles yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > That isn't even relevant to what we are talking about. What you have
> > written
> > > > directly above does not relate to marginal products in any way shape
or
> > > > form.
> > > > Do you understand what marginal product refers to?
> > >
> > > It's a pretty textbook version of marginalism in its redone
> > > decision-theoretic form.
> > >
> > I asked you a simple question, do you think you could give a relevant
> > answer?
> > What you have written is nothing but waffling nonsence.
>
> That's a relevant answer: you're leaving a hundred years of economics
> out,
No I am not leaving it out, what I have said is the culmination of all
economic history. Because of those years we know RW=MPL.
> including economics you would like once you understood how your
> current terminology is limited.
In what way? I could say the same of you and it is not more or less valid,
utill it is justified.
> I'm not going to apologize for
> knowing something you don't.
>
I still say the emperor has no clothes.
> > > > > > > I know whereof I speak.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously you don't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh, let's wait until we meet to discuss this. (See below).
> > > > >
> > > > Very well.
> > >
> > > You like that from the people up top, I see.
> > >
> > What? Is that supposed to make no sence whatsoever?
>
> Yes.
>
What is it supposed to mean then? It simply makes no sense, it isn't even
proper english.
I never said they did. I said they add to the level of production, they do
this by organisation. The gain in production made by their efforts is their
marginal product, this you have not even attempted to deny.
> I'm not going to allow that
> they work twice as hard as everyone and thusly have the right to the
> mantle of labor as well as the deep pockets of management.
>
They aren't labourers, and that title very few managers would want. Besides
you are not the one to judge what they are, or what they do.
> > > Why are you hanging out on alt.politics.communism?
> >
> > To do as I have done with you, to show that you are devoid of ideas and
are
> > completely wrong.
>
> You know, under ordinary circumstances when people pay themselves
> empty compliments which denigrate others I don't even mind, but I'm
> getting kind of fond of this newsgroup and tired of your routine.
>
I imagine you are tired of being proven wrong, I am sure you are tired of me
rubbing your face in the fact that every idea and principle you hold dear is
garbage, I am sure you are tired of the fact that the only 'arugment' you
can make against me is to simply say "your wrong" and nothing else.
> > > (I ask because
> > > your life *is* my responsibility, brother.)
> > >
> > Why?
>
> All men are brothers. I mean it, too.
>
So you and your friends have decided this and I must obey? Is this how it is
supposed to work?
What if I disagree, what if I say no man is my brother, I am alone. Do you
think I have the right to do so?
> > > > > I can move.
> > > >
> > > > I doubt they would want a communist, from the ones we have had
working
> > there
> > > > communists are incrediable lazy and stupid.
> > >
> > > It's true, it's a group you generalize about any way you like.
> >
> > That is not a generalisation, to say that all communists hired by the
> > company were lazy and stupid is a statement of fact, to say they are
> > representative of communists in general is either statistically valid or
> > invalid. There is no generalisation at all.
>
> I think you're making part of this up;
Really do you? Have I given you any reason for disbelief?
> I doubt these people were really communists,
Have you ever met them?
> but I believe they were charged full price for
> something like that.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, charged full price for what? Being
communists? Do you think communists should be charged on a sliding scale?
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
I can prove I am physically stronger than you very easily and am more than
willing to do so, Intellignece is a little harder to prove as I imagine you
would not beleive in the validity of I.Q.
Stuart Hawkins
You implied it was unfair, implication means that you did not actually say
it but made it clear in the tone of your statement that it is what you
thought.
> What I
> did say was that there can be some question about where the money came
> from;
What question? It came from the people who earnt it or from those that were
freely given it.
> I personally don't think Pablo Escobar's children would be
> entitled to much except heavy-duty witness protection from all and
> sundry.
Then you are a fool, people have the right to put whatever substance they
wish into their body as it is THEIR BODY!!!!!!! He has a right to sell
drugs, the law that prevents him from doing so is unjust and oppressive
therefore he had every right to kill as many police officers as he had to,
even the constitution says that you have the right to defend himself against
(even kill) the agent of an oppressive government or enforcer of an unjust
law.
> Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
Do you? You think it is fine to steal from someones property if you give it
away? Well no good can come from evil, it is still theft.
> if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can work
> with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering schemes,
> where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to pay
> more than a fraction of what they were paying for the infrastructure
> they use most heavily, are disgusting).
>
Hey the answer to that is to have a free market system so everyone pays for
what they use.
> > > > > You really can't, any kind of way; and it's not
> > > > > his responsibility to disabuse you of illusions to the contrary.
> > > > > That's all.
> > > > >
> > > > If I did as I wanted, how would I be kicking him? Come on back up
your
> > > > waffle, how would my actions ammount to kicking him? Explain exactly
> > how,
> > > > without the why you have mothing at all.
> > > > Your welfare state and communism would be the ones doing the
kicking,
> > > > kicking people like me in order to supply him with food and money,
that
> > I
> > > > worked for no less.
> > >
> > > You can't misrepresent someone's labor-power by slandering or libeling
> > > them; you're not legally allowed to,
> >
> > How does this relate to my question? Do you really think you can answer
my
> > questions with answers to other questions?
> > You said that you can't kick someone as the response to my statement
that i
> > should not be forced to help a starving man.
>
> You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down in
> life generally.
Without the why you still have nothing.
Besides words are words, they are not and can never be kicking.
> It's really illegal in any common-law system, as
> concerns about your own liberty never outrank the liberty of others
> (although they can easily "outweigh" it).
>
Your statement is self contradictory, how can my liberty matter less than
anothers and yet we are all equal before the state. You still have no
explained antything, all you have done is say you are kicking someone and
yet have failed to tell me how.
> > > and even if you think the law
> > > sucks violations of it would involve non-consensuality (breach of
> > > contract in intention, things people might possibly agree to).
> >
> > Breach of what contract? If the law violates my rights as an individual
then
> > it has no reason to exist and violating it is a defensive action.
>
> Breach of potential contract between them and other people (which is a
> matter of civil society, not law per se, and encroachment upon which
> violates the rights of others)
Only an act of force can encroach upon the rights of others, leaving a
starving man alone is not force.
>; but I guess anything counts as
> defensive these days.
>
Are you going to make a point somethime soon?
> > > Does
> > > it happen? Yeah. Does it necessarily hurt weak people? No.
> >
> > Whatever.
> > What happened to everything else I wrote, couldn't answer it huh? Not
that
> > you answered anything else I have written
>
> If I have to say it, I'm thrashing you pretty thoroughly;
By telling me I am wrong but not why?
By telling me I am kicking someone but not how my actions are such?
By ignoring 90% of what I write?
By telling me you know how it really is but refusing to share how it reall
is?
If you think that you are winning then you are insane, all your so called
argument ammount to is saying "no your wrong"
> show this
> thread to your boss if you want a "material" opinion. I don't like to
> say that kind of thing, but sometimes people really do push too hard.
I have shown it to many people, all of which laugh hysterically at your so
called arguments.
Now tell me exactly how my actions are kicking someone? The fact you haven't
done so proves you are losing.
Jeff Rubard
You give no indication of being disciplined enough for it to be a
problem; just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
free throws like he does today, and I don't really care to be charged
for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind. Don't sweat
that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real question, as
on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb0...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:<3fac...@clear.net.nz>...
> > ordinarily count as "products" in a very straightforward sense. Are
> > they products people want to buy? You wouldn't really want to give
> > those away for free without a reason.
> >
> Well nobody would pay for the nonsence you write.
That's already happened some time ago (this would be an example of the
kind of thing I told you not to do).
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb4...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> that it
> > > is universially accepted, please try to keep up Mr. Rubard.
> >
> > Ok, just let me know when we're at war with Eurasia (as far I know,
> > that's not right now).
> >
> Interesting communists quoting 1984, are you trying imply that thousands of
> independent studies that show the validity of a mathematical formula to the
> real world is in any way similar to the lies made up by a communist/fascist
> government? If so I would be gald to hearyour reasoning, failure to do so
> will mean you have retracted your implication and are admitting you just
> said it because you knew you were wrong and didn't want to admitt it.
There are not thousands of independent studies which confirm this one
economic formula you throw at me again and again; it's a theorem,
which together with other theorems explains a very refined sector of
economic facts (i.e., doesn't have too much application to
"real-world" situations). It's really just a convenient excuse to
award yourself "facts and reasons", which we'll deal with below.
> > > > > > (that's the "labor
> > > > > > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
> > > > >
> > > > > And here you are liying again.
> > > >
> > > > Quit bulling.
> > > >
> > > Who's bulling? What am I doing to bully anyone?
> >
> > Bulling == spreading bullshit. Fertilizer, or pleasant-smelling
> > lubricant? Depends.
> >
> Then you are the one who is bulling, you have given no reasons for your
> statements on the other hand I have backed mine with reason and facts. It is
> exteremly easy to do what you are doing, all you need to do is say your
> wrong and never back it up; if that is the level of your argument then it is
> clear that it is who that is wrong.
You sound like a Fox News guy; there are facts and reasons enough for
you to post up for someone else's slam-dunk on an irrationalist
(always); but your argumentation is weak, and this reveals a paucity
of thought about the relevant area (such that you really shouldn't be
making it your business to work people over in this newsgroup).
> > That's a relevant answer: you're leaving a hundred years of economics
> > out,
>
> No I am not leaving it out, what I have said is the culmination of all
> economic history. Because of those years we know RW=MPL.
This is starting to get a little bit parodistic, I'm curious to see
where you go with this.
> > I'm not going to apologize for
> > knowing something you don't.
> >
> I still say the emperor has no clothes.
That's something nobody can ever make you stop saying.
> > Yes.
> >
> What is it supposed to mean then? It simply makes no sense, it isn't even
> proper english.
Whatever the hell that means.
> > Managers perform a necessary task; but they do not perform the task of
> > the laborer, in thought or in reality.
>
> I never said they did. I said they add to the level of production, they do
> this by organisation. The gain in production made by their efforts is their
> marginal product, this you have not even attempted to deny.
This they do; they don't do the production, and I haven't denied that
they are responsible for marginal product. That's the reason it must
be a subjective value, they didn't make anything (there are reasons
from the market perspective as well).
> They aren't labourers, and that title very few managers would want. Besides
> you are not the one to judge what they are, or what they do.
If they don't pay me, I say what I like.
> > All men are brothers. I mean it, too.
> >
> So you and your friends have decided this and I must obey? Is this how it is
> supposed to work?
> What if I disagree, what if I say no man is my brother, I am alone. Do you
> think I have the right to do so?
Yeah, in fact I wish you would go do that somewhere else. But I
haven't set you up for a fall.
> > I think you're making part of this up;
>
> Really do you? Have I given you any reason for disbelief?
I know some stuff separately from you.
> > I doubt these people were really communists,
>
> Have you ever met them?
There really aren't too many today, and there's a grand tradition of
picking on "pinkos" in really extreme ways in the US.
> > but I believe they were charged full price for
> > something like that.
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean, charged full price for what? Being
> communists? Do you think communists should be charged on a sliding scale?
Yes, that is a good way to put it. "Charged full price" indicates a
different kind of sliding scale.
Jeff Rubard
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb4...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fb0...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:<3faf...@clear.net.nz>...
> >
>
> You implied it was unfair, implication means that you did not actually say
> it but made it clear in the tone of your statement that it is what you
> thought.
No I didn't, I left that possibility open because I knew someone like
you would try to close it, which you are trying to do by imputing
resentment to me (it's a "double-dip" ripoff).
> > What I
> > did say was that there can be some question about where the money came
> > from;
>
> What question? It came from the people who earnt it or from those that were
> freely given it.
See below.
> > I personally don't think Pablo Escobar's children would be
> > entitled to much except heavy-duty witness protection from all and
> > sundry.
>
> Then you are a fool, people have the right to put whatever substance they
> wish into their body as it is THEIR BODY!!!!!!! He has a right to sell
> drugs, the law that prevents him from doing so is unjust and oppressive
> therefore he had every right to kill as many police officers as he had to,
> even the constitution says that you have the right to defend himself against
> (even kill) the agent of an oppressive government or enforcer of an unjust
> law.
What if they don't know what they're ingesting, because there are no
regulations (as indeed there are not with illegal drugs -- that might
not have been "E" your friends were taking at the club, for example).
And no, Escobar didn't have a right to kill anyone (and the US
Constitution, which however he wasn't bound by, doesn't say that; we
had an argument here in the US about that a while ago). You're
basically posturing as an anarchist, and frankly I'd like to know why
since it's not good for business (your defense of property rights is
rather uneven, and a healthy market requires it all round).
> > Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
>
> Do you? You think it is fine to steal from someones property if you give it
> away? Well no good can come from evil, it is still theft.
I think what you're doing here (red-baiting where any possible common
ground is destroyed by inconsistent arguments) is pretty bad, but I
wouldn't stop you: something good could come of it, and it's not
illegal unless you're someone other than who you claim to be and
you're not out to harm other people's reputations by speaking
utterances contrary to your mind.
> > if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can work
> > with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering schemes,
> > where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to pay
> > more than a fraction of what they were paying for the infrastructure
> > they use most heavily, are disgusting).
> >
> Hey the answer to that is to have a free market system so everyone pays for
> what they use.
No, the idea is that corporations who do a lot of business in the US
can not pay for all the US infrastructure they heavily use (trucks
wear down roads a lot more than cars, for example); it's a scam.
> > You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down in
> > life generally.
>
> Without the why you still have nothing.
> Besides words are words, they are not and can never be kicking.
It's good advice because that latter part's not true (I can see you've
never spent much time in the UK, although some people spend entirely
too much time there).
> > It's really illegal in any common-law system, as
> > concerns about your own liberty never outrank the liberty of others
> > (although they can easily "outweigh" it).
> >
> Your statement is self contradictory, how can my liberty matter less than
> anothers and yet we are all equal before the state. You still have no
> explained antything, all you have done is say you are kicking someone and
> yet have failed to tell me how.
It doesn't matter less, but it doesn't matter more because you've read
Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Robert Nozick or whatever.
> > Breach of potential contract between them and other people (which is a
> > matter of civil society, not law per se, and encroachment upon which
> > violates the rights of others)
>
> Only an act of force can encroach upon the rights of others, leaving a
> starving man alone is not force.
Doesn't have to be physical force.
> >; but I guess anything counts as
> > defensive these days.
> >
> Are you going to make a point somethime soon?
That point was made here in the US a little while ago.
>
> By telling me I am wrong but not why?
> By telling me I am kicking someone but not how my actions are such?
> By ignoring 90% of what I write?
> By telling me you know how it really is but refusing to share how it reall
> is?
> If you think that you are winning then you are insane, all your so called
> argument ammount to is saying "no your wrong"
Since almost all you do is say that, that makes me feel pretty good.
> > show this
> > thread to your boss if you want a "material" opinion. I don't like to
> > say that kind of thing, but sometimes people really do push too hard.
>
> I have shown it to many people, all of which laugh hysterically at your so
> called arguments.
> Now tell me exactly how my actions are kicking someone? The fact you haven't
> done so proves you are losing.
I don't believe this, or rather I'd like to know who the people are
such that they're not disturbed by your idiosyncratic orthography.
Your arguments are faulty, and if you are intentionally giving faulty
arguments to create the impression there is no contest between our
views that's a very sticky wicket indeed.
Jeff Rubard
Stuart Hawkins
Semantics, that is all you have. It is the profit maximum point.
> it's a theorem,
> which together with other theorems explains a very refined sector of
> economic facts (i.e., doesn't have too much application to
> "real-world" situations).
Well according to the emprical studies it does. You see the thousands of
independent stuides show the relevance of RW=MPL to the real world.
> It's really just a convenient excuse to
> award yourself "facts and reasons", which we'll deal with below.
>
Try to avoid it all you can but the fact remains that empirics and reason
are on my side.
> > > > > > > (that's the "labor
> > > > > > > theory of value" marginalists castigate Marxists for),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And here you are liying again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quit bulling.
> > > > >
> > > > Who's bulling? What am I doing to bully anyone?
> > >
> > > Bulling == spreading bullshit. Fertilizer, or pleasant-smelling
> > > lubricant? Depends.
> > >
> > Then you are the one who is bulling, you have given no reasons for your
> > statements on the other hand I have backed mine with reason and facts.
It is
> > exteremly easy to do what you are doing, all you need to do is say your
> > wrong and never back it up; if that is the level of your argument then
it is
> > clear that it is who that is wrong.
>
> You sound like a Fox News guy; there are facts and reasons enough for
> you to post up for someone else's slam-dunk on an irrationalist
> (always); but your argumentation is weak, and this reveals a paucity
> of thought about the relevant area (such that you really shouldn't be
> making it your business to work people over in this newsgroup).
>
My argument is so sound that you have been unable to even being countering
it.
> > > That's a relevant answer: you're leaving a hundred years of economics
> > > out,
> >
> > No I am not leaving it out, what I have said is the culmination of all
> > economic history. Because of those years we know RW=MPL.
>
> This is starting to get a little bit parodistic, I'm curious to see
> where you go with this.
>
I thought the above was self explainitory.
> > > I'm not going to apologize for
> > > knowing something you don't.
> > >
> > I still say the emperor has no clothes.
>
> That's something nobody can ever make you stop saying.
>
You could stop me, by simply giving substance to your claims of superior
knowledge and the validity of your ideas.
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > What is it supposed to mean then? It simply makes no sense, it isn't
even
> > proper english.
>
> Whatever the hell that means.
That means that using the rules of english, what you wrote was not even a
sentence.
> > > Managers perform a necessary task; but they do not perform the task of
> > > the laborer, in thought or in reality.
> >
> > I never said they did. I said they add to the level of production, they
do
> > this by organisation. The gain in production made by their efforts is
their
> > marginal product, this you have not even attempted to deny.
>
> This they do; they don't do the production,
Nobody said they did.
> and I haven't denied that
> they are responsible for marginal product.
Then what is your point?
> That's the reason it must
> be a subjective value, they didn't make anything (there are reasons
> from the market perspective as well).
>
What nonsence, do you understand the term subjective? The gain in production
that they are responsible for is measureable, this means that it CAN NOT BE
SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! (upper case words to be shouted one at a time)
> > They aren't labourers, and that title very few managers would want.
Besides
> > you are not the one to judge what they are, or what they do.
>
> If they don't pay me, I say what I like.
>
Nobody said you couldn't say as you like, but you can not define what they
do or what they are.
> > > All men are brothers. I mean it, too.
> > >
> > So you and your friends have decided this and I must obey? Is this how
it is
> > supposed to work?
> > What if I disagree, what if I say no man is my brother, I am alone. Do
you
> > think I have the right to do so?
>
> Yeah, in fact I wish you would go do that somewhere else.
How about I do that wherever I damn well like, so long as I do not initate
force against anyone?
> But I
> haven't set you up for a fall.
>
No, you haven't. All you have done is make statements with no reasoning or
backing whatsoever.
> > > I think you're making part of this up;
> >
> > Really do you? Have I given you any reason for disbelief?
>
> I know some stuff separately from you.
>
About the situation I expressed?
> > > I doubt these people were really communists,
> >
> > Have you ever met them?
>
> There really aren't too many today, and there's a grand tradition of
> picking on "pinkos" in really extreme ways in the US.
>
I am in New Zealand.
> > > but I believe they were charged full price for
> > > something like that.
> >
> > What the hell is that supposed to mean, charged full price for what?
Being
> > communists? Do you think communists should be charged on a sliding
scale?
>
> Yes, that is a good way to put it. "Charged full price" indicates a
> different kind of sliding scale.
>
So you think commies should be charged less for what?
> Jeff Rubard
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fb5...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > It's true I don't understand a lot of what you say.
> > > > >
> > > > Well atleast you are man enough to admitt when you are outclassed.
> > >
> > > I missed this comment, but I think I'll address it. No, I'm really
> > > too much (and I actually feel pretty bad about this for
> > > gender-critique reasons). I've never met a man I didn't think was
> > > fundamentally weaker than me in some important way, I always think my
> > > "superiors" (like you) are skating on this, and I've never had this
> > > disproven to my satisfaction (or general satisfaction, for that
> > > matter). It's kind of a sticky wicket, actually, systematically
> > > taking responsibility for your actions in their oppressive aspect; not
> > > recommended for the totally excellent.
> >
> > I can prove I am physically stronger than you very easily and am more
than
> > willing to do so, Intellignece is a little harder to prove as I imagine
you
> > would not beleive in the validity of I.Q.
>
> You give no indication of being disciplined enough for it to be a
> problem;
Disciplined enough? Are you trying to imply some form of physical
competition other than a demonstration of my superior strength?
> just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
> free throws like he does today,
I have very little body fat, less than 4%. I am 181cm (6 foot) tall and
'weigh' 104kg (233 pounds).
> and I don't really care to be charged
> for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind.
Is that supposed to mean you accept I.Q. as a measure of intelligence?
> Don't sweat
> that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real question, as
> on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
So by that do you mean you accept I am physically superior?
Stuart Hawkins
So by that attempt at obfuscation am I expected to take the meaning that you
accept I am physically superior to you and that you accept I.Q. as a measure
of intelligence?
Stuart Hawkins
up with later statements, i.e. your belief in estate taxes.
> > > What I
> > > did say was that there can be some question about where the money came
> > > from;
> >
> > What question? It came from the people who earnt it or from those that
were
> > freely given it.
>
> See below.
>
No, answer the question now. I give you the courtesy of answering your
statements repeatedly, despite all of them beinabout the same thing and
answered by the same point.
> > > I personally don't think Pablo Escobar's children would be
> > > entitled to much except heavy-duty witness protection from all and
> > > sundry.
> >
> > Then you are a fool, people have the right to put whatever substance
they
> > wish into their body as it is THEIR BODY!!!!!!! He has a right to sell
> > drugs, the law that prevents him from doing so is unjust and oppressive
> > therefore he had every right to kill as many police officers as he had
to,
> > even the constitution says that you have the right to defend himself
against
> > (even kill) the agent of an oppressive government or enforcer of an
unjust
> > law.
>
> What if they don't know what they're ingesting,
It depends upon why they didn't know, if it was from carelessness then it is
their own fault. If an attempt was made to give it to the person without
their knowledge, to "slip them a mickey" as it were, then it would be an act
of force.
> because there are no
> regulations (as indeed there are not with illegal drugs -- that might
> not have been "E" your friends were taking at the club, for example).
Simple, if they were legal people would know exactly what they got.
> And no, Escobar didn't have a right to kill anyone (and the US
> Constitution, which however he wasn't bound by, doesn't say that; we
> had an argument here in the US about that a while ago).
Actually it does, it says so point blank in as many words. the fact that the
supreme court chooses to ignore that fact means nothing.
> You're
> basically posturing as an anarchist,
Not at all, I beleive in law. The only just law is that which prevents the
initation of force or fraud (yes I know fraud is technically a type of
force).
> and frankly I'd like to know why
> since it's not good for business (your defense of property rights is
> rather uneven, and a healthy market requires it all round).
>
The non-initiation of force principle, I suggest (again) that you find out
about it before proving (yet again) that you are woefully inadequate to
begin discussing anything with me.
> > > Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
> >
> > Do you? You think it is fine to steal from someones property if you give
it
> > away? Well no good can come from evil, it is still theft.
>
> I think what you're doing here (red-baiting where any possible common
> ground is destroyed by inconsistent arguments) is pretty bad,
Tell me an inconsistent argument I have made and I will explain why you are
wrong.
> but I
> wouldn't stop you: something good could come of it, and it's not
> illegal unless you're someone other than who you claim to be and
> you're not out to harm other people's reputations by speaking
> utterances contrary to your mind.
>
That isn't even a sentence, it does not even fit the basic requirements of a
sentence.
> > > if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can work
> > > with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering schemes,
> > > where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to pay
> > > more than a fraction of what they were paying for the infrastructure
> > > they use most heavily, are disgusting).
> > >
> > Hey the answer to that is to have a free market system so everyone pays
for
> > what they use.
>
> No, the idea is that corporations who do a lot of business in the US
> can not pay for all the US infrastructure they heavily use
Irrelevant, in a free market there is no tax, there are no govenment owned
anything. There is only the legal system and the army. Private business will
own infrastructure nad they will make the people who use it pay.
>(trucks
> wear down roads a lot more than cars, for example); it's a scam.
>
Exactly why in a free market we have user pays, in the market the trucks and
the cars will pay a market rate, which takes into account the differeing
costs of each.
> > > You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down in
> > > life generally.
> >
> > Without the why you still have nothing.
> > Besides words are words, they are not and can never be kicking.
>
> It's good advice because that latter part's not true (I can see you've
> never spent much time in the UK, although some people spend entirely
> too much time there).
>
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
> > > It's really illegal in any common-law system, as
> > > concerns about your own liberty never outrank the liberty of others
> > > (although they can easily "outweigh" it).
> > >
> > Your statement is self contradictory, how can my liberty matter less
than
> > anothers and yet we are all equal before the state. You still have no
> > explained antything, all you have done is say you are kicking someone
and
> > yet have failed to tell me how.
>
> It doesn't matter less, but it doesn't matter more because you've read
> Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Robert Nozick or whatever.
>
I never said it did, I even contended that everyones liberty matters the
same (the only equality worth maintaining)
> > > Breach of potential contract between them and other people (which is a
> > > matter of civil society, not law per se, and encroachment upon which
> > > violates the rights of others)
> >
> > Only an act of force can encroach upon the rights of others, leaving a
> > starving man alone is not force.
>
> Doesn't have to be physical force.
>
Explain the nature of the force? what possible force has my incation CAUSED?
Inaction by defintion can not cause a force.
> > >; but I guess anything counts as
> > > defensive these days.
> > >
> > Are you going to make a point somethime soon?
>
> That point was made here in the US a little while ago.
>
I don't live in the US, so how the hell would I know what the hell you are
talking about?
> >
> > By telling me I am wrong but not why?
> > By telling me I am kicking someone but not how my actions are such?
> > By ignoring 90% of what I write?
> > By telling me you know how it really is but refusing to share how it
reall
> > is?
> > If you think that you are winning then you are insane, all your so
called
> > argument ammount to is saying "no your wrong"
>
> Since almost all you do is say that, that makes me feel pretty good.
>
Really then what is RW=MPL?
What is explaining everything you have said as nonsence?
What is the reasoning and backing for everything I have said?
Is that simply saying "no you are wrong"?
If our argument were a fight, I knocked you down in the first 5 seconds ask
you if you surrender and you answer "Why, I am winning". I then proceed to
kick you as you can not stand, I stop and ask again "do you surrender now?",
your answer is solw as you first cough up blood, all your teeth, one kidney,
and half your liver. "Why on earth would I surrender when am so obviously
winning?" Very soon the only way I will have to contact you is a seance.
> > > show this
> > > thread to your boss if you want a "material" opinion. I don't like to
> > > say that kind of thing, but sometimes people really do push too hard.
> >
> > I have shown it to many people, all of which laugh hysterically at your
so
> > called arguments.
> > Now tell me exactly how my actions are kicking someone? The fact you
haven't
> > done so proves you are losing.
>
> I don't believe this, or rather I'd like to know who the people are
> such that they're not disturbed by your idiosyncratic orthography.
Ohh my spelling is terrible, can you spell areoplane or colour for me
please?
> Your arguments are faulty,
Then how come you have not tried to disprove them?
> and if you are intentionally giving faulty
> arguments to create the impression there is no contest between our
> views that's a very sticky wicket indeed.
>
what I write has a point, what you write does not, that generally means I
win.
Jeff Rubard
I can see you've never really been involved with a martial art,
because
that's totally not something a pugilist would say. I was a nationally
ranked fencer as a kid, which is not really brutal enough for the
present day, but I know enough not to take short shits at their
(usually implied) word: if you're 5'8" or under, I'd just "underpower"
you on center of gravity alone, and above that it'd be reflexes (which
persist to a certain extent after years of training), tolerance
for pain, and who wanted it more; and that'd probably be you because
I just can't care about this kind of thing.
> > just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
> > free throws like he does today,
>
> I have very little body fat, less than 4%. I am 181cm (6 foot) tall and
> 'weigh' 104kg (233 pounds).
That's great, I still don't want to fuck (I'm kinda tired of that sort
of
thing).
> > and I don't really care to be charged
> > for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind.
>
> Is that supposed to mean you accept I.Q. as a measure of intelligence?
It's better (really more scientifically respectable) than Spearman's
"q"; I don't use the heuristic because I had off-the-charts ratings at
one point (think Yao Ming) and it didn't do me too much good.
> > Don't sweat
> > that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real question, as
> > on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
>
> So by that do you mean you accept I am physically superior?
Honey, it's okay.
Jeff Rubard
Yes, that's what you're expected to do; you're clearly not adjusting
your arguments in light of solid arguments and evidence I'm
presenting. But hey, what else is new?
Jeff Rubard
Well, I'm okay with a lot of things I don't really like; nobody asked
me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not, and like taxes
generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days". You're
not taking that lying down, though, and I can kind of appreciate the
spirit.
> > > > What I
> > > > did say was that there can be some question about where the money came
> > > > from;
> > >
> > > What question? It came from the people who earnt it or from those that
> were
> > > freely given it.
> >
> > See below.
> >
> No, answer the question now. I give you the courtesy of answering your
> statements repeatedly, despite all of them beinabout the same thing and
> answered by the same point.
They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on point",
you're trying to get me on things that are not quite relevant (are you
insecure because you're bald or something?)
> > > > I personally don't think Pablo Escobar's children would be
> > > > entitled to much except heavy-duty witness protection from all and
> > > > sundry.
> > >
> > > Then you are a fool, people have the right to put whatever substance
> they
> > > wish into their body as it is THEIR BODY!!!!!!! He has a right to sell
> > > drugs, the law that prevents him from doing so is unjust and oppressive
> > > therefore he had every right to kill as many police officers as he had
> to,
> > > even the constitution says that you have the right to defend himself
> against
> > > (even kill) the agent of an oppressive government or enforcer of an
> unjust
> > > law.
> >
> > What if they don't know what they're ingesting,
>
> It depends upon why they didn't know, if it was from carelessness then it is
> their own fault. If an attempt was made to give it to the person without
> their knowledge, to "slip them a mickey" as it were, then it would be an act
> of force.
Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in place
it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as the
Silver Jews once said).
> > because there are no
> > regulations (as indeed there are not with illegal drugs -- that might
> > not have been "E" your friends were taking at the club, for example).
>
> Simple, if they were legal people would know exactly what they got.
Since when is unlabeled legal merchandise a known quantity?
> > And no, Escobar didn't have a right to kill anyone (and the US
> > Constitution, which however he wasn't bound by, doesn't say that; we
> > had an argument here in the US about that a while ago).
>
> Actually it does, it says so point blank in as many words. the fact that the
> supreme court chooses to ignore that fact means nothing.
That's a really constructive attitude.
> > You're
> > basically posturing as an anarchist,
>
> Not at all, I beleive in law. The only just law is that which prevents the
> initation of force or fraud (yes I know fraud is technically a type of
> force).
How is this to be enforced?
> > and frankly I'd like to know why
> > since it's not good for business (your defense of property rights is
> > rather uneven, and a healthy market requires it all round).
> >
> The non-initiation of force principle, I suggest (again) that you find out
> about it before proving (yet again) that you are woefully inadequate to
> begin discussing anything with me.
I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I might
be able to swing that.
> > > > Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
> > >
> > > Do you? You think it is fine to steal from someones property if you give
> it
> > > away? Well no good can come from evil, it is still theft.
> >
> > I think what you're doing here (red-baiting where any possible common
> > ground is destroyed by inconsistent arguments) is pretty bad,
>
> Tell me an inconsistent argument I have made and I will explain why you are
> wrong.
Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are just
stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > but I
> > wouldn't stop you: something good could come of it, and it's not
> > illegal unless you're someone other than who you claim to be and
> > you're not out to harm other people's reputations by speaking
> > utterances contrary to your mind.
> >
> That isn't even a sentence, it does not even fit the basic requirements of a
> sentence.
It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
remainder.
> > > > if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can work
> > > > with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering schemes,
> > > > where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to pay
> > > > more than a fraction of what they were paying for the infrastructure
> > > > they use most heavily, are disgusting).
> > > >
> > > Hey the answer to that is to have a free market system so everyone pays
> for
> > > what they use.
> >
> > No, the idea is that corporations who do a lot of business in the US
> > can not pay for all the US infrastructure they heavily use
>
> Irrelevant, in a free market there is no tax, there are no govenment owned
> anything. There is only the legal system and the army. Private business will
> own infrastructure nad they will make the people who use it pay.
Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> Exactly why in a free market we have user pays, in the market the trucks and
> the cars will pay a market rate, which takes into account the differeing
> costs of each.
But remind me to use your toll road (there won't be any freeways).
Bicycle riders will probably get a *really* good deal.
> > > > You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down in
> > > > life generally.
> > >
> > > Without the why you still have nothing.
> > > Besides words are words, they are not and can never be kicking.
> >
> > It's good advice because that latter part's not true (I can see you've
> > never spent much time in the UK, although some people spend entirely
> > too much time there).
> >
> Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic people
they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned) and
not an excuse.
> > It doesn't matter less, but it doesn't matter more because you've read
> > Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Robert Nozick or whatever.
> >
> I never said it did, I even contended that everyones liberty matters the
> same (the only equality worth maintaining)
Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't belong
on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely aggressive
statements against me). I feel great!
> > Doesn't have to be physical force.
> >
> Explain the nature of the force? what possible force has my incation CAUSED?
> Inaction by defintion can not cause a force.
Inaction by definition cannot cause a force, so it leaves existing
forces as they are. If I set a giant boulder rolling towards you, and
then decide to file my nails rather than alert you, I can be culpable
for my inaction (criminal negligence) as well as my action.
> > > Are you going to make a point somethime soon?
> >
> > That point was made here in the US a little while ago.
> >
> I don't live in the US, so how the hell would I know what the hell you are
> talking about?
The US civil war, and the point was made such that the "indeterminate"
character of American discourse about that event could come through
(that's a riter trik).
> winning?" Very soon the only way I will have to contact you is a seance.
This is perhaps true.
> > I don't believe this, or rather I'd like to know who the people are
> > such that they're not disturbed by your idiosyncratic orthography.
>
> Ohh my spelling is terrible, can you spell areoplane or colour for me
> please?
Aeroplane, airplane
colour, color
The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit like
the difference between Dutch and German. But your spelling is almost
*too* terrible.
> > Your arguments are faulty,
>
> Then how come you have not tried to disprove them?
I have tried, maybe I haven't succeeded. It happens.
> > and if you are intentionally giving faulty
> > arguments to create the impression there is no contest between our
> > views that's a very sticky wicket indeed.
> >
> what I write has a point, what you write does not, that generally means I
> win.
Keep on truckin'. (I don't know what else to say, I'm trying to be
gracious in any case.)
Stuart Hawkins
Then you would be incorrect. I have trained at several martial arts for
several years, but that is irrelevant as what I was alluding to was not a
fight. I was wondering if you were referring to a race or some form of
physical game.
> I was a nationally
> ranked fencer as a kid, which is not really brutal enough for the
> present day, but I know enough not to take short shits at their
> (usually implied) word: if you're 5'8" or under, I'd just "underpower"
> you on center of gravity alone, and above that it'd be reflexes (which
> persist to a certain extent after years of training), tolerance
> for pain, and who wanted it more; and that'd probably be you because
> I just can't care about this kind of thing.
>
HAHAHA If you are talking about a fight, you would not stand a chance.
> > > just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
> > > free throws like he does today,
> >
> > I have very little body fat, less than 4%. I am 181cm (6 foot) tall and
> > 'weigh' 104kg (233 pounds).
>
> That's great, I still don't want to fuck (I'm kinda tired of that sort
> of
> thing).
>
I only mentioned my physical statistics because of your comment of a fat
stomach.
> > > and I don't really care to be charged
> > > for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind.
> >
> > Is that supposed to mean you accept I.Q. as a measure of intelligence?
>
> It's better (really more scientifically respectable) than Spearman's
> "q"; I don't use the heuristic because I had off-the-charts ratings at
> one point (think Yao Ming) and it didn't do me too much good.
>
Whatever.
> > > Don't sweat
> > > that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real question, as
> > > on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
> >
> > So by that do you mean you accept I am physically superior?
>
> Honey, it's okay.
Good, so you admitt that you are fundamentaly weaker than some in some
important ways.
Stuart Hawkins
What you mean when you say "no your wrong because I know how it really is,
but I am not going to tell you." Well that really is solid argument and
evidence
Stuart Hawkins
So what? I said you didn't like the idea of inherritance and then tried to
get you to tell me why you didn't like it.
> nobody asked
> me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
> nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not,
They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
> and like taxes
> generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
So what?
> You're
> not taking that lying down, though, and I can kind of appreciate the
> spirit.
>
Taxes are stealing. I am not going to be placated by the fact they may have
been higher in the past, I simply do not want to be stolen from at all.
> > > > > What I
> > > > > did say was that there can be some question about where the money
came
> > > > > from;
> > > >
> > > > What question? It came from the people who earnt it or from those
that
> > were
> > > > freely given it.
> > >
> > > See below.
> > >
> > No, answer the question now. I give you the courtesy of answering your
> > statements repeatedly, despite all of them beinabout the same thing and
> > answered by the same point.
>
> They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on point",
Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something you
could do with less than five?
> you're trying to get me on things that are not quite relevant (are you
> insecure because you're bald or something?)
>
That is what you are trying to do Mr. Rubard, for example your claim that I
am kicking people. I on the other hand am asking highly relevant questions,
like the one above. So let me explain the question and why it is relevant.
You said there can be some question about where the money comes from. I
said the money can only come from those that earnt it or who were given it
freely and then awaited why that could possibly be wrong. tell me how that s
irrelevant to the discussion of inherriatance?
My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they current one
(common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more efficient).
> > > because there are no
> > > regulations (as indeed there are not with illegal drugs -- that might
> > > not have been "E" your friends were taking at the club, for example).
> >
> > Simple, if they were legal people would know exactly what they got.
>
> Since when is unlabeled legal merchandise a known quantity?
>
Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or contaminated
product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an irrelvancy.
> > > And no, Escobar didn't have a right to kill anyone (and the US
> > > Constitution, which however he wasn't bound by, doesn't say that; we
> > > had an argument here in the US about that a while ago).
> >
> > Actually it does, it says so point blank in as many words. the fact that
the
> > supreme court chooses to ignore that fact means nothing.
>
> That's a really constructive attitude.
>
If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you may wander
on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off would be
a constructive attitude.
> > > You're
> > > basically posturing as an anarchist,
> >
> > Not at all, I beleive in law. The only just law is that which prevents
the
> > initation of force or fraud (yes I know fraud is technically a type of
> > force).
>
> How is this to be enforced?
>
By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> > > and frankly I'd like to know why
> > > since it's not good for business (your defense of property rights is
> > > rather uneven, and a healthy market requires it all round).
> > >
> > The non-initiation of force principle, I suggest (again) that you find
out
> > about it before proving (yet again) that you are woefully inadequate to
> > begin discussing anything with me.
>
> I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I might
> be able to swing that.
>
You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that you do
that from your replies to my other posts.
> > > > > Furthermore, I think estate taxes are perfectly reasonable;
> > > >
> > > > Do you? You think it is fine to steal from someones property if you
give
> > it
> > > > away? Well no good can come from evil, it is still theft.
> > >
> > > I think what you're doing here (red-baiting where any possible common
> > > ground is destroyed by inconsistent arguments) is pretty bad,
> >
> > Tell me an inconsistent argument I have made and I will explain why you
are
> > wrong.
>
> Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are just
> stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
>
Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I have
just recently asked you to look it up.
> > > but I
> > > wouldn't stop you: something good could come of it, and it's not
> > > illegal unless you're someone other than who you claim to be and
> > > you're not out to harm other people's reputations by speaking
> > > utterances contrary to your mind.
> > >
> > That isn't even a sentence, it does not even fit the basic requirements
of a
> > sentence.
>
> It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> remainder.
>
The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the writing
in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
> > > > > if you're "sold" on America enough to do business here, you can
work
> > > > > with the government (the Bermuda corporate money-laundering
schemes,
> > > > > where businesses set up a nominal HQ there so they don't have to
pay
> > > > > more than a fraction of what they were paying for the
infrastructure
> > > > > they use most heavily, are disgusting).
> > > > >
> > > > Hey the answer to that is to have a free market system so everyone
pays
> > for
> > > > what they use.
> > >
> > > No, the idea is that corporations who do a lot of business in the US
> > > can not pay for all the US infrastructure they heavily use
> >
> > Irrelevant, in a free market there is no tax, there are no govenment
owned
> > anything. There is only the legal system and the army. Private business
will
> > own infrastructure nad they will make the people who use it pay.
>
> Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
>
What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let other hard
wotrking people pay for it for you?
The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points was shown
to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with nonsence.
> > Exactly why in a free market we have user pays, in the market the trucks
and
> > the cars will pay a market rate, which takes into account the differeing
> > costs of each.
>
> But remind me to use your toll road (there won't be any freeways).
How they are charged for is not my conern.
> Bicycle riders will probably get a *really* good deal.
>
Maybe, but then again that would be good for the environment wouldn't it?
> > > > > You're doing it in this thread, and I'd advise you to tone it down
in
> > > > > life generally.
> > > >
> > > > Without the why you still have nothing.
> > > > Besides words are words, they are not and can never be kicking.
> > >
> > > It's good advice because that latter part's not true (I can see you've
> > > never spent much time in the UK, although some people spend entirely
> > > too much time there).
> > >
> > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
>
> They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic people
> they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned) and
> not an excuse.
>
What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you ever
heard of free speach?
> > > It doesn't matter less, but it doesn't matter more because you've read
> > > Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Robert Nozick or whatever.
> > >
> > I never said it did, I even contended that everyones liberty matters the
> > same (the only equality worth maintaining)
>
> Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't belong
> on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely aggressive
> statements against me). I feel great!
>
What extremely aggressive statements?
> > > Doesn't have to be physical force.
> > >
> > Explain the nature of the force? what possible force has my incation
CAUSED?
> > Inaction by defintion can not cause a force.
>
> Inaction by definition cannot cause a force, so it leaves existing
> forces as they are.
Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> If I set a giant boulder rolling towards you, and
> then decide to file my nails rather than alert you, I can be culpable
> for my inaction (criminal negligence) as well as my action.
>
Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that caused
the problem.
If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
> > > > Are you going to make a point somethime soon?
> > >
> > > That point was made here in the US a little while ago.
> > >
> > I don't live in the US, so how the hell would I know what the hell you
are
> > talking about?
>
> The US civil war,
You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little while
ago.
> and the point was made such that the "indeterminate"
> character of American discourse about that event could come through
> (that's a riter trik).
>
And the relevancy of that?
> > winning?" Very soon the only way I will have to contact you is a seance.
>
> This is perhaps true.
>
> > > I don't believe this, or rather I'd like to know who the people are
> > > such that they're not disturbed by your idiosyncratic orthography.
> >
> > Ohh my spelling is terrible, can you spell areoplane or colour for me
> > please?
>
> Aeroplane, airplane
> colour, color
>
> The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit like
> the difference between Dutch and German.
Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> But your spelling is almost
> *too* terrible.
>
can you understand what i am typing?
> > > Your arguments are faulty,
> >
> > Then how come you have not tried to disprove them?
>
> I have tried, maybe I haven't succeeded. It happens.
>
Well simply saying that I am wrong is not attempting to disprove anythig.
> > > and if you are intentionally giving faulty
> > > arguments to create the impression there is no contest between our
> > > views that's a very sticky wicket indeed.
> > >
> > what I write has a point, what you write does not, that generally means
I
> > win.
>
> Keep on truckin'. (I don't know what else to say, I'm trying to be
> gracious in any case.)
Your trying to bore me (and it is working)
Jeff Rubard
That's for funtime; you clearly don't know how to end that kind of
pissing contest before it starts, which is the only part worth knowing
about in my humble opinion and which is pretty much all serious
pugilists rather than agonists ever do (whether they're going to win
or not).
> > I was a nationally
> > ranked fencer as a kid, which is not really brutal enough for the
> > present day, but I know enough not to take short shits at their
> > (usually implied) word: if you're 5'8" or under, I'd just "underpower"
> > you on center of gravity alone, and above that it'd be reflexes (which
> > persist to a certain extent after years of training), tolerance
> > for pain, and who wanted it more; and that'd probably be you because
> > I just can't care about this kind of thing.
> >
> HAHAHA If you are talking about a fight, you would not stand a chance.
You know, I've never been to New Zealand. Ever been in Portland, or
Pittsburgh?
> > > > just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
> > > > free throws like he does today,
> > >
> > > I have very little body fat, less than 4%. I am 181cm (6 foot) tall and
> > > 'weigh' 104kg (233 pounds).
> >
> > That's great, I still don't want to fuck (I'm kinda tired of that sort
> > of
> > thing).
> >
> I only mentioned my physical statistics because of your comment of a fat
> stomach.
Sure.
> > > > and I don't really care to be charged
> > > > for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind.
> > >
> > > Is that supposed to mean you accept I.Q. as a measure of intelligence?
> >
> > It's better (really more scientifically respectable) than Spearman's
> > "q"; I don't use the heuristic because I had off-the-charts ratings at
> > one point (think Yao Ming) and it didn't do me too much good.
> >
> Whatever.
It's true, and it's true it's not the important thing in life.
> > > > Don't sweat
> > > > that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real question, as
> > > > on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
> > >
> > > So by that do you mean you accept I am physically superior?
> >
> > Honey, it's okay.
>
> Good, so you admitt that you are fundamentaly weaker than some in some
> important ways.
If that's your idea of weakness, I guess so.
Jeff Rubard
That's not what I said, I've heard that enough so I try to always
offer substantive data: *from which* you can draw your own
conclusions, at the price of not taking cheap shots not underwritten
by your grasp of the material.
Jeff Rubard
What, do I have to jump up and down and scream for someone else's ice
cream? (Note for US readers: No, you really don't. I swear!)
> > nobody asked
> > me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
> > nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not,
>
> They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
"Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
> > and like taxes
> > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
>
> So what?
Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on point",
>
> Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something you
> could do with less than five?
No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in place
> > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as the
> > Silver Jews once said).
> >
> My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they current one
> (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more efficient).
Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or contaminated
> product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
> And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an irrelvancy.
Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you may wander
> on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off would be
> a constructive attitude.
You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I might
> > be able to swing that.
> >
> You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that you do
> that from your replies to my other posts.
I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are just
> > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> >
> Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I have
> just recently asked you to look it up.
Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary society
from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
limits.)
> > It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> > remainder.
> >
> The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the writing
> in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the Commonwealthy
on the topic of English usage.
> > Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> >
> What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let other hard
> wotrking people pay for it for you?
> The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points was shown
> to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with nonsence.
I would rather let hardworking me pay for it myself (and I don't have
a lot more in life than what I've paid for or made). I don't see that
there's been a point to win or lose.
> > > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt
me.
> >
> > They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic people
> > they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> > staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> > exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned) and
> > not an excuse.
> >
> What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you ever
> heard of free speach?
Free speech=!an unlimited right to speak ill of others, and the others
usually agitate for even stricter boundaries than actually exist if
you can believe it. You really gotta watch that stuff.
> > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't belong
> > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely aggressive
> > statements against me). I feel great!
> >
> What extremely aggressive statements?
"I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda cute,
but frankly I got other things to do.)
> Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
before.
> Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that caused
> the problem.
> If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
> movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
If I was going to materially benefit from you being squashed, and
decided not to inform you of the forthcoming grievous bodily harm on
that basis, that would be (probably civil, I'm not a lawyer)
negligence.
> > The US civil war,
>
> You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little while
> ago.
It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to me,
too. The people against positions like yours won.
> > Aeroplane, airplane
> > colour, color
> >
> > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit like
> > the difference between Dutch and German.
>
> Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> > But your spelling is almost
> > *too* terrible.
> >
> can you understand what i am typing?
Sometimes no, but it's true that spelling *errors* aren't important.
> > Keep on truckin'. (I don't know what else to say, I'm trying to be
> > gracious in any case.)
>
> Your trying to bore me (and it is working)
I'm sorry, this newsgroup was not created for your amusement; if you
can get something out of it without impeding substantive discussion,
that's great, but that's not quite where we're at right now.
Stuart Hawkins
what does that tells about the two of us?
> > > I was a nationally
> > > ranked fencer as a kid, which is not really brutal enough for the
> > > present day, but I know enough not to take short shits at their
> > > (usually implied) word: if you're 5'8" or under, I'd just "underpower"
> > > you on center of gravity alone, and above that it'd be reflexes (which
> > > persist to a certain extent after years of training), tolerance
> > > for pain, and who wanted it more; and that'd probably be you because
> > > I just can't care about this kind of thing.
> > >
> > HAHAHA If you are talking about a fight, you would not stand a chance.
>
> You know, I've never been to New Zealand. Ever been in Portland, or
> Pittsburgh?
>
No, what is your point?
> > > > > just because you have a gut like Shaq doesn't mean you shoot
> > > > > free throws like he does today,
> > > >
> > > > I have very little body fat, less than 4%. I am 181cm (6 foot) tall
and
> > > > 'weigh' 104kg (233 pounds).
> > >
> > > That's great, I still don't want to fuck (I'm kinda tired of that sort
> > > of
> > > thing).
> > >
> > I only mentioned my physical statistics because of your comment of a fat
> > stomach.
>
> Sure.
>
And here we have another of your problems, the fact you decide what people
are saying not them.
> > > > > and I don't really care to be charged
> > > > > for tasty bits of mutton floating around in your mind.
> > > >
> > > > Is that supposed to mean you accept I.Q. as a measure of
intelligence?
> > >
> > > It's better (really more scientifically respectable) than Spearman's
> > > "q"; I don't use the heuristic because I had off-the-charts ratings at
> > > one point (think Yao Ming) and it didn't do me too much good.
> > >
> > Whatever.
>
> It's true, and it's true it's not the important thing in life.
>
I.Q. is rather important.
> > > > > Don't sweat
> > > > > that other stuff, though; I don't think there'd be a real
question, as
> > > > > on matters of substance I am delivering and you are Deliverance.
> > > >
> > > > So by that do you mean you accept I am physically superior?
> > >
> > > Honey, it's okay.
> >
> > Good, so you admitt that you are fundamentaly weaker than some in some
> > important ways.
>
> If that's your idea of weakness, I guess so.
Well being weaker means by definition that you are weaker.
Stuart Hawkins
Like what? I haven't seen any.
> *from which* you can draw your own
> conclusions, at the price of not taking cheap shots not underwritten
> by your grasp of the material
A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
Stuart Hawkins
> > > nobody asked
> > > me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
> > > nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not,
> >
> > They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
>
> "Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
>
Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
> > > and like taxes
> > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> >
> > So what?
>
> Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
>
Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
> > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on point",
> >
> > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something you
> > could do with less than five?
>
> No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
>
But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored with
your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
> > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in place
> > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as the
> > > Silver Jews once said).
> > >
> > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they current
one
> > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more efficient).
>
> Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
>
Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
> > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
contaminated
> > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
> > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
irrelvancy.
>
> Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
>
According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
> > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you may
wander
> > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off would
be
> > a constructive attitude.
>
> You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
>
Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
> > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
>
> I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
>
Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people being
allowed to defend themselves.
> > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I might
> > > be able to swing that.
> > >
> > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that you
do
> > that from your replies to my other posts.
>
> I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
>
And still more of your irrelevancies.
> > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are just
> > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > >
> > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I have
> > just recently asked you to look it up.
>
> Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary society
> from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> limits.)
>
Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
interaction is voluntary.
> > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> > > remainder.
> > >
> > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the
writing
> > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
>
> Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the Commonwealthy
> on the topic of English usage.
>
Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the meaning of
your writings may be very different from your intention.
> > > Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> > >
> > What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let other
hard
> > wotrking people pay for it for you?
> > The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points was
shown
> > to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with nonsence.
>
> I would rather let hardworking me pay for it myself (and I don't have
> a lot more in life than what I've paid for or made). I don't see that
> there's been a point to win or lose.
You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I said the
answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set you straight.
Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
> > > > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt
> me.
> > >
> > > They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic people
> > > they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> > > staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> > > exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned) and
> > > not an excuse.
> > >
> > What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you ever
> > heard of free speach?
>
> Free speech=!an unlimited right to speak ill of others, and the others
> usually agitate for even stricter boundaries than actually exist if
> you can believe it. You really gotta watch that stuff.
>
And? Now tell me what I have said that could possibly hurt your reputation?
> > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't belong
> > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely aggressive
> > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > >
> > What extremely aggressive statements?
>
> "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda cute,
> but frankly I got other things to do.)
>
Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
irrelevancies proves that.
> > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
>
> It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> before.
>
No it can not.
> > Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that
caused
> > the problem.
> > If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
> > movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
>
> If I was going to materially benefit from you being squashed, and
> decided not to inform you of the forthcoming grievous bodily harm on
> that basis, that would be (probably civil, I'm not a lawyer)
> negligence.
>
No it would not. The first thing they teach you in law is that you do not
have to help someone in peril if you did not cause the peril. Did you not
see the final episode of Seinfeld?
> > > The US civil war,
> >
> > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little
while
> > ago.
>
> It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to me,
> too. The people against positions like yours won.
>
Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You are the
one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is similar to
that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your styatement
and appologise.
> > > Aeroplane, airplane
> > > colour, color
> > >
> > > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit like
> > > the difference between Dutch and German.
> >
> > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
>
> Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
>
No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> > > But your spelling is almost
> > > *too* terrible.
> > >
> > can you understand what i am typing?
>
> Sometimes no, but it's true that spelling *errors* aren't important.
>
Whatever.
> > > Keep on truckin'. (I don't know what else to say, I'm trying to be
> > > gracious in any case.)
> >
> > Your trying to bore me (and it is working)
>
> I'm sorry, this newsgroup was not created for your amusement; if you
> can get something out of it without impeding substantive discussion,
> that's great, but that's not quite where we're at right now.
I am supplying information quite well, you on the other hand are not
Jeff Rubard
I do, but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
> > > > and like taxes
> > > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> >
> Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial estates, I
suppose it would be. Could we have a rider attached such that other
people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
> > > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on point",
> > >
> > > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something you
> > > could do with less than five?
> >
> > No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> >
> But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored with
> your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
Who cares? You're in the wrong place at what appears to be the right
time.
Please do ignore them.
> > > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in place
> > > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as the
> > > > Silver Jews once said).
> > > >
> > > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they current
> one
> > > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more efficient).
> >
> > Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> >
> Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on centuries of
precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
contemporary
standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
would have a field day.
> > > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
> contaminated
> > > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
> > > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
> irrelvancy.
> >
> > Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> >
> According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
(most all historians would agree).
> > > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you may
> wander
> > > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off would
> be
> > > a constructive attitude.
> >
> > You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> >
> Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
It's unhealthy for somebody else, and you don't simply state facts
(nobody does).
> > > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> >
> > I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> >
> Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people being
> allowed to defend themselves.
Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum, and people are
allowed to defend themselves against *direct* attacks of various kinds
(without tripping any get-off-the-scaffold-free switch).
> > > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I might
> > > > be able to swing that.
> > > >
> > > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that you
> do
> > > that from your replies to my other posts.
> >
> > I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> >
> And still more of your irrelevancies.
Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
> > > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are just
> > > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > > >
> > > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I have
> > > just recently asked you to look it up.
> >
> > Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary society
> > from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> > limits.)
> >
> Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
> interaction is voluntary.
I'm not seeing this.
> > > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> > > > remainder.
> > > >
> > > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the
> writing
> > > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
> >
> > Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the Commonwealthy
> > on the topic of English usage.
> >
> Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the meaning of
> your writings may be very different from your intention.
I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for print
eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
there.
> > > > Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> > > >
> > > What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let other
> hard
> > > wotrking people pay for it for you?
> > > The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points was
> shown
> > > to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with nonsence.
> >
> > I would rather let hardworking me pay for it myself (and I don't have
> > a lot more in life than what I've paid for or made). I don't see that
> > there's been a point to win or lose.
>
> You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I said the
> answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set you straight.
> Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
If it's important to you.
> > > > > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt
> me.
> > > >
> > > > They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic people
> > > > they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> > > > staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> > > > exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned) and
> > > > not an excuse.
> > > >
> > > What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you ever
> > > heard of free speach?
> >
> > Free speech=!an unlimited right to speak ill of others, and the others
> > usually agitate for even stricter boundaries than actually exist if
> > you can believe it. You really gotta watch that stuff.
> >
> And? Now tell me what I have said that could possibly hurt your reputation?
You're claiming all kinds of things that would materially
(economically) hurt me if we were discussing occupational issues. But
we're not.
> > > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't belong
> > > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely aggressive
> > > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > > >
> > > What extremely aggressive statements?
> >
> > "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda cute,
> > but frankly I got other things to do.)
> >
> Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
> irrelevancies proves that.
Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
> > > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> >
> > It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> > before.
> >
> No it can not.
Ask a lawyer.
> > > Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that
> caused
> > > the problem.
> > > If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
> > > movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
> >
> > If I was going to materially benefit from you being squashed, and
> > decided not to inform you of the forthcoming grievous bodily harm on
> > that basis, that would be (probably civil, I'm not a lawyer)
> > negligence.
> >
> No it would not. The first thing they teach you in law is that you do not
> have to help someone in peril if you did not cause the peril. Did you not
> see the final episode of Seinfeld?
That's not where I get my sense of the law from.
> > > > The US civil war,
> > >
> > > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little
> while
> > > ago.
> >
> > It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to me,
> > too. The people against positions like yours won.
> >
> Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You are the
> one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
> You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is similar to
> that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your styatement
> and appologise.
I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with self-defense.
What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War are
not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
self-government, including individual freedom from government
incursion).
> > > > Aeroplane, airplane
> > > > colour, color
> > > >
> > > > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit like
> > > > the difference between Dutch and German.
> > >
> > > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> >
> > Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> >
> No but then again he did not spell words that way.
Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
> > > > But your spelling is almost
> > > > *too* terrible.
> > > >
> > > can you understand what i am typing?
> >
> > Sometimes no, but it's true that spelling *errors* aren't important.
> >
> Whatever.
Add "gets across" and you'll be okay with me.
> > > > Keep on truckin'. (I don't know what else to say, I'm trying to be
> > > > gracious in any case.)
> > >
> > > Your trying to bore me (and it is working)
> >
> > I'm sorry, this newsgroup was not created for your amusement; if you
> > can get something out of it without impeding substantive discussion,
> > that's great, but that's not quite where we're at right now.
>
> I am supplying information quite well, you on the other hand are not
I'd like to supply information to other people who may really be
interested. Would that be okay?
Jeff Rubard
Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things), and
I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least thousands).
Stuart Hawkins
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fbc...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fb9...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fb8...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fb5...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Yes, that's what you're expected to do; you're clearly not
adjusting
> > > > > your arguments in light of solid arguments and evidence I'm
> > > > > presenting.
> > > >
> > > > What you mean when you say "no your wrong because I know how it
really
> > is,
> > > > but I am not going to tell you." Well that really is solid argument
and
> > > > evidence
> > >
> > > That's not what I said, I've heard that enough so I try to always
> > > offer substantive data:
> >
> > Like what? I haven't seen any.
> >
No answer at ll, interesting. Funny how we have gone down from five seperate
replies to just two, are you trying to cut your losses and reply to those
you can just waflle on endlessly about?
> > > *from which* you can draw your own
> > > conclusions, at the price of not taking cheap shots not underwritten
> > > by your grasp of the material
> >
> > A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
>
> Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things),
Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What you should
have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter etc.
> and
> I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least thousands).
Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
Stuart Hawkins
> > > > > > Actually you did imply that you disliked inherritance and have
> > backed
> > that
> > > > > > up with later statements, i.e. your belief in estate taxes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm okay with a lot of things I don't really like;
> > > >
> > > > So what? I said you didn't like the idea of inherritance and then
tried
> > to
> > > > get you to tell me why you didn't like it.
> > >
> > > What, do I have to jump up and down and scream for someone else's ice
> > > cream? (Note for US readers: No, you really don't. I swear!)
> > >
> > Well that is what you are doing when you have estate taxes.
> >
Funny how you refuse to answer some things.
> > > > > nobody asked
> > > > > me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
> > > > > nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not,
> > > >
> > > > They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
> > >
> > > "Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
> > >
> > Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
>
> I do,
Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
> but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
> about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
>
Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things that
matter.
> > > > > and like taxes
> > > > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> > > >
> > > > So what?
> > >
> > > Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> > >
> > Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
>
> For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial estates, I
> suppose it would be.
For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
> Could we have a rider attached such that other
> people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
>
Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them alone to do
with what is theirs as they see fit.
> > > > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on
point",
> > > >
> > > > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something
you
> > > > could do with less than five?
> > >
> > > No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> > >
> > But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored with
> > your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
>
> Who cares? You're in the wrong place at what appears to be the right
> time.
What don't you like having your beliefs to be shown as the nonsence and
garbage they really are?
Despite what you would like this newsgroup is free and open, that means I
may tell anyone and everyone here exactly what I like.
> Please do ignore them.
>
And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs to be
totally devoid of any substance?
> > > > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in
place
> > > > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as
the
> > > > > Silver Jews once said).
> > > > >
> > > > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they
current
> > one
> > > > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more
efficient).
> > >
> > > Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> > >
> > Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
>
> The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on centuries of
> precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
> contemporary
> standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
> would have a field day.
>
Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is unsurprising
that is the self consistent.
> > > > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > > > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
> > contaminated
> > > > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
> > > > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
> > irrelvancy.
> > >
> > > Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> > >
> > According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
>
> That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
> (most all historians would agree).
>
Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
happening?....Didn't think so
> > > > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you
may
> > wander
> > > > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off
would
> > be
> > > > a constructive attitude.
> > >
> > > You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> > >
> > Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
>
> It's unhealthy for somebody else, and you don't simply state facts
> (nobody does).
>
Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my audience),
that must mean I simply stated a fact.
> > > > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> > >
> > > I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> > >
> > Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people being
> > allowed to defend themselves.
>
> Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
> and people are
> allowed to defend themselves against *direct* attacks of various kinds
> (without tripping any get-off-the-scaffold-free switch).
>
Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them repeatedly
with your desert eagle .50
> > > > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I
might
> > > > > be able to swing that.
> > > > >
> > > > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that
you
> > do
> > > > that from your replies to my other posts.
> > >
> > > I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> > >
> > And still more of your irrelevancies.
>
> Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
>
Lets not and say we didn't.
> > > > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are
just
> > > > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > > > >
> > > > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I
have
> > > > just recently asked you to look it up.
> > >
> > > Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary society
> > > from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> > > limits.)
> > >
> > Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
> > interaction is voluntary.
>
> I'm not seeing this.
>
If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human interaction not
be voluntary?
> > > > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> > > > > remainder.
> > > > >
> > > > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the
> > writing
> > > > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
> > >
> > > Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the Commonwealthy
> > > on the topic of English usage.
> > >
> > Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the
meaning of
> > your writings may be very different from your intention.
>
> I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for print
> eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
> there.
>
And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is appauling?
> > > > > Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> > > > >
> > > > What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let
other
> > hard
> > > > wotrking people pay for it for you?
> > > > The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points
was
> > shown
> > > > to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with
nonsence.
> > >
> > > I would rather let hardworking me pay for it myself (and I don't have
> > > a lot more in life than what I've paid for or made). I don't see that
> > > there's been a point to win or lose.
> >
> > You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I said the
> > answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set you
straight.
> > Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
>
> If it's important to you.
>
It is important to reality, to say otherwise is to deny reality.
> > > > > > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt
> > me.
> > > > >
> > > > > They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic
people
> > > > > they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> > > > > staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> > > > > exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned)
and
> > > > > not an excuse.
> > > > >
> > > > What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you
ever
> > > > heard of free speach?
> > >
> > > Free speech=!an unlimited right to speak ill of others, and the others
> > > usually agitate for even stricter boundaries than actually exist if
> > > you can believe it. You really gotta watch that stuff.
> > >
> > And? Now tell me what I have said that could possibly hurt your
reputation?
>
> You're claiming all kinds of things that would materially
> (economically) hurt me if we were discussing occupational issues.
Like what? You can't possibly mean cutting you off from other people's
money?
> But
> we're not.
>
And?
> > > > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't
belong
> > > > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely
aggressive
> > > > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > > > >
> > > > What extremely aggressive statements?
> > >
> > > "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda cute,
> > > but frankly I got other things to do.)
> > >
> > Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
> > irrelevancies proves that.
>
> Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
> delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
>
Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so what
does that tell us?
> > > > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> > >
> > > It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> > > before.
> > >
> > No it can not.
>
> Ask a lawyer.
>
Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
> > > > Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that
> > caused
> > > > the problem.
> > > > If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
> > > > movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
> > >
> > > If I was going to materially benefit from you being squashed, and
> > > decided not to inform you of the forthcoming grievous bodily harm on
> > > that basis, that would be (probably civil, I'm not a lawyer)
> > > negligence.
> > >
> > No it would not. The first thing they teach you in law is that you do
not
> > have to help someone in peril if you did not cause the peril. Did you
not
> > see the final episode of Seinfeld?
>
> That's not where I get my sense of the law from.
>
Neither do I, i get mine from university. The reference to Seinfeld is a
popular culture reference that reinforces my point and explains it to the
masses.
> > > > > The US civil war,
> > > >
> > > > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little
> > while
> > > > ago.
> > >
> > > It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to me,
> > > too. The people against positions like yours won.
> > >
> > Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You are
the
> > one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
> > You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is similar
to
> > that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your
styatement
> > and appologise.
>
> I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with self-defense.
You implied it and as far as slander is concered that is the same thing.
> What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War are
> not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
> partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
> self-government, including individual freedom from government
> incursion).
Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
Jeff Rubard
Stylistically, it's a little inelegant. Grammatically, perfectly
correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
> > and
> > I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least thousands).
>
> Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
Don't agree, suit yourself.
Stuart Hawkins
> > > > > *from which* you can draw your own
> > > > > conclusions, at the price of not taking cheap shots not
underwritten
> > > > > by your grasp of the material
> > > >
> > > > A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
> > >
> > > Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things),
> >
> > Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What you
should
> > have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter etc.
>
> Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
Massively inelegant.
> Grammatically, perfectly
> correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
>
Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as far as
English goes it is just plain wrong.
> > > and
> > > I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least thousands).
> >
> > Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
>
> Don't agree, suit yourself.
My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using the
language.
Jeff Rubard
I am trying to cut my losses. Every time I talk to an "informed"
fellow like you, it costs me, and they end up winning even if there's
nobody around. Like I said, I'd consider myself delusional if I
awarded myself such plaudits without checking rather thorougly but
hey, I guess beggars can't be choosers and HE IS A BEGGAR.
> > > > > > *from which* you can draw your own
> > > > > > conclusions, at the price of not taking cheap shots not
> underwritten
> > > > > > by your grasp of the material
> > > > >
> > > > > A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
> > > >
> > > > Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things),
> > >
> > > Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What you
> should
> > > have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter etc.
> >
> > Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
>
> Massively inelegant.
Do you hire people to write for you? No? Don't care about your
editorial opinion, really. That's the way that is -- in reality,
anyway.
> > Grammatically, perfectly
> > correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
> >
> Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as far as
> English goes it is just plain wrong.
It's correct enough wherever the surface grammatical form of English
obeys the laws of logic.
>
> > > > and
> > > > I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least thousands).
> > >
> > > Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
> >
> > Don't agree, suit yourself.
>
> My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using the
> language.
That's true, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As far as I
can tell, you don't really know the fact of the matter. That doesn't
bother me insofar as it doesn't hurt me; I am less concerned with you
than you with me. And how libertarian is that?
Jeff Rubard
I wouldn't advise speculating about my mental states, there are a lot
of factors (collateral beliefs and activities) involved.
> > > > > > nobody asked
> > > > > > me whether bequests were okay or not, it's a legal activity. But
> > > > > > nobody asked you whether estate taxes were okay or not,
> > > > >
> > > > > They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
> > > >
> > > > "Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
> > > >
> > > Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
> >
> > I do,
>
> Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
>
> > but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
> > about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
> >
> Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things that
> matter.
Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
> > > > > > and like taxes
> > > > > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> > > > >
> > > > > So what?
> > > >
> > > > Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> > > >
> > > Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
> >
> > For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial estates, I
> > suppose it would be.
>
> For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
Lots of people don't leave estates. This is misleading.
> > Could we have a rider attached such that other
> > people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
> >
> Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them alone to do
> with what is theirs as they see fit.
I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time; I
wish I could say the same of them, and I've always had to clap
afterwards (but it's really no problem).
> > > > > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on
> point",
> > > > >
> > > > > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say something
> you
> > > > > could do with less than five?
> > > >
> > > > No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> > > >
> > > But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored with
> > > your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
> >
> > Who cares? You're in the wrong place at what appears to be the right
> > time.
>
> What don't you like having your beliefs to be shown as the nonsence and
> garbage they really are?
> Despite what you would like this newsgroup is free and open, that means I
> may tell anyone and everyone here exactly what I like.
Oh, please, throw around some terms of oppobrium some more.
> > Please do ignore them.
> >
> And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs to be
> totally devoid of any substance?
Whatever, fool.
> > > > > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in
> place
> > > > > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place, as
> the
> > > > > > Silver Jews once said).
> > > > > >
> > > > > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they
> current
> one
> > > > > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more
> efficient).
> > > >
> > > > Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> > > >
> > > Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
> >
> > The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on centuries of
> > precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
> > contemporary
> > standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
> > would have a field day.
> >
> Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is unsurprising
> that is the self consistent.
What the fuck do you know? Clearly not very much, as it is not really
a religious matter at all.
> > > > > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > > > > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
> contaminated
> > > > > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive loss?
> > > > > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
> irrelvancy.
> > > >
> > > > Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> > > >
> > > According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
> >
> > That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
> > (most all historians would agree).
> >
> Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
> happening?....Didn't think so
Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse. Being funny, because this is just
unreasonable.
> > > > > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning you
> may
> wander
> > > > > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head off
> would
> be
> > > > > a constructive attitude.
> > > >
> > > > You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> > > >
> > > Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
> >
> > It's unhealthy for somebody else, and you don't simply state facts
> > (nobody does).
> >
> Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my audience),
> that must mean I simply stated a fact.
Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
> > > > > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> > > >
> > > Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people being
> > > allowed to defend themselves.
> >
> > Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
>
> Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
Exactly so.
> > and people are
> > allowed to defend themselves against *direct* attacks of various kinds
> > (without tripping any get-off-the-scaffold-free switch).
> >
> Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them repeatedly
> with your desert eagle .50
>
> > > > > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think I
> might
> > > > > > be able to swing that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen that
> you
> do
> > > > > that from your replies to my other posts.
> > > >
> > > > I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> > > >
> > > And still more of your irrelevancies.
> >
> > Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
> >
> Lets not and say we didn't.
Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
Okay? Okay?
> > > > > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions are
> just
> > > > > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times. Infact I
> have
> > > > > just recently asked you to look it up.
> > > >
> > > > Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary society
> > > > from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> > > > limits.)
> > > >
> > > Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
> > > interaction is voluntary.
> >
> > I'm not seeing this.
> >
> If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human interaction not
> be voluntary?
What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> > > > > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real rock-bottom
> > > > > > remainder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that the
> writing
> > > > > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a sentence.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the Commonwealthy
> > > > on the topic of English usage.
> > > >
> > > Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the
> meaning of
> > > your writings may be very different from your intention.
> >
> > I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for print
> > eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
> > there.
> >
> And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is appauling?
It doesn't, that's a value-judgment and not a fact.
> > > > > > Dude, remind me not to visit your island.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What you don't want to pay for what you use? You would rather let
> other
> hard
> > > > > wotrking people pay for it for you?
> > > > > The fact remains I won that point, your argument against my points
> was
> shown
> > > > > to be invalid and when presented with this fact you reply with
> nonsence.
> > > >
> > > > I would rather let hardworking me pay for it myself (and I don't have
> > > > a lot more in life than what I've paid for or made). I don't see that
> > > > there's been a point to win or lose.
> > >
> > > You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I said the
> > > answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set you
> straight.
> > > Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
> >
> > If it's important to you.
> >
> It is important to reality, to say otherwise is to deny reality.
Reality is that you are right and I am wrong? I'm never visiting New
Zealand, and it's a shame 'cause I used to think New Zealanders were
pretty cool and low-key.
> > > > > > > Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt
> me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They'll hurt your reputation, and if you do that to less stoic
> people
> > > > > > they can go legal and put a *major* hurt on you (ask former *LM*
> > > > > > staffers). It's easier in the UK than in the US, but that's an
> > > > > > exculpation (a reason to feel bad for journalists who get burned)
> and
> > > > > > not an excuse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What have I said that could possibly hurt your reputation? Have you
> ever
> > > > > heard of free speach?
> > > >
> > > > Free speech=!an unlimited right to speak ill of others, and the others
> > > > usually agitate for even stricter boundaries than actually exist if
> > > > you can believe it. You really gotta watch that stuff.
> > > >
> > > And? Now tell me what I have said that could possibly hurt your
> reputation?
> >
> > You're claiming all kinds of things that would materially
> > (economically) hurt me if we were discussing occupational issues.
>
> Like what? You can't possibly mean cutting you off from other people's
> money?
What is exchange but offering goods for other people's money?
> > But
> > we're not.
> >
> And?
So I don't care about this inexpert hatchet job.
> > > > > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > > > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly don't
> belong
> > > > > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely
> aggressive
> > > > > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > > > > >
> > > > > What extremely aggressive statements?
> > > >
> > > > "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda cute,
> > > > but frankly I got other things to do.)
> > > >
> > > Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
> > > irrelevancies proves that.
> >
> > Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
> > delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
> >
> Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so what
> does that tell us?
I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
> > > > > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> > > >
> > > > It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> > > > before.
> > > >
> > > No it can not.
> >
> > Ask a lawyer.
> >
> Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
Ask a lawyer, I'm not an expert.
> > > > > Yes, you set the boulder going and as such it was your action that
> caused
> > > > > the problem.
> > > > > If the same boulder was rolling toward me and you did not cause it's
> > > > > movement etc then you would not be responsible for telling me of it.
> > > >
> > > > If I was going to materially benefit from you being squashed, and
> > > > decided not to inform you of the forthcoming grievous bodily harm on
> > > > that basis, that would be (probably civil, I'm not a lawyer)
> > > > negligence.
> > > >
> > > No it would not. The first thing they teach you in law is that you do
> not
> > > have to help someone in peril if you did not cause the peril. Did you
> not
> > > see the final episode of Seinfeld?
> >
> > That's not where I get my sense of the law from.
> >
> Neither do I, i get mine from university. The reference to Seinfeld is a
> popular culture reference that reinforces my point and explains it to the
> masses.
Did you study law?
> > > > > > The US civil war,
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a little
> while
> > > > > ago.
> > > >
> > > > It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to me,
> > > > too. The people against positions like yours won.
> > > >
> > > Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You are
> the
> > > one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
> > > You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is similar
> to
> > > that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your
> styatement
> > > and appologise.
> >
> > I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with self-defense.
>
> You implied it and as far as slander is concered that is the same thing.
No it's not, although implication can be involved the burden of proof
is higher if it's not explicitly said (and then immediately
disavowed). I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
> > What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War are
> > not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
> > partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
> > self-government, including individual freedom from government
> > incursion).
>
> Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
No, these people do.
> >
> > > > > > Aeroplane, airplane
> > > > > > colour, color
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little bit
> like
> > > > > > the difference between Dutch and German.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> > > >
> > > No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> >
> > Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
No answer here.
Stuart Hawkins
Well that would mean you would have to give up communism.
> Every time I talk to an "informed"
> fellow like you, it costs me, and they end up winning even if there's
> nobody around.
When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
> Like I said, I'd consider myself delusional if I
> awarded myself such plaudits without checking rather thorougly but
> hey, I guess beggars can't be choosers and HE IS A BEGGAR.
>
Who is a beggar?
> > > > > > A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things),
> > > >
> > > > Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What you
> > should
> > > > have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter
etc.
> > >
> > > Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
> >
> > Massively inelegant.
>
> Do you hire people to write for you?
No I don't need to, but you should.
> No? Don't care about your
> editorial opinion, really. That's the way that is -- in reality,
> anyway.
>
Care or not, I am still right.
> > > Grammatically, perfectly
> > > correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
> > >
> > Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as far
as
> > English goes it is just plain wrong.
>
> It's correct enough wherever the surface grammatical form of English
> obeys the laws of logic.
>
Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by comparivies.
> >
> > > > > and
> > > > > I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least
thousands).
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
> > >
> > > Don't agree, suit yourself.
> >
> > My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using the
> > language.
>
> That's true, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As far as I
> can tell, you don't really know the fact of the matter.
Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
> That doesn't
> bother me insofar as it doesn't hurt me; I am less concerned with you
> than you with me. And how libertarian is that?
I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
advocating the use of force against me.
Stuart Hawkins
> > > > > > > Well, I'm okay with a lot of things I don't really like;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what? I said you didn't like the idea of inherritance and
then
> > tried
> > to
> > > > > > get you to tell me why you didn't like it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What, do I have to jump up and down and scream for someone else's
ice
> > > > > cream? (Note for US readers: No, you really don't. I swear!)
> > > > >
> > > > Well that is what you are doing when you have estate taxes.
> > > >
> > Funny how you refuse to answer some things.
>
> I wouldn't advise speculating about my mental states, there are a lot
> of factors (collateral beliefs and activities) involved.
>
Now that really is irrelevant. I said that it is funny that you refuse to
answer some things, your mental states and collateral beliefs and activities
are irrelevant to that statement, as they are irrelevant to the question I
asked earlier.
> > > > > > They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
> > > > >
> > > > Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
> > >
> > > I do,
> >
> > Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
> >
> > > but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
> > > about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
> > >
> > Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things that
> > matter.
>
> Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
>
More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
possible?
> > > > > > > and like taxes
> > > > > > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what?
> > > > >
> > > > > Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> > > > >
> > > > Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
> > >
> > > For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial estates, I
> > > suppose it would be.
> >
> > For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
>
> Lots of people don't leave estates.
Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must be
correct.
> This is misleading.
>
No it is not.
> > > Could we have a rider attached such that other
> > > people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
> > >
> > Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them alone
to do
> > with what is theirs as they see fit.
>
> I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time;
But you argue for what they earn.
> I wish I could say the same of them,
How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
> and I've always had to clap
> afterwards (but it's really no problem).
>
What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked away
If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can always say
no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or be
punnished.
> > > > > > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on
> > point",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say
something
> > you
> > > > > > could do with less than five?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> > > > >
> > > > But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored
with
> > > > your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
> > >
> > > Who cares? You're in the wrong place at what appears to be the right
> > > time.
> >
> > What don't you like having your beliefs to be shown as the nonsence and
> > garbage they really are?
> > Despite what you would like this newsgroup is free and open, that means
I
> > may tell anyone and everyone here exactly what I like.
>
> Oh, please, throw around some terms of oppobrium some more.
>
Facts and reason are what I use.
> > > Please do ignore them.
> > >
> > And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs to be
> > totally devoid of any substance?
>
> Whatever, fool.
>
And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he resorts to
insuts.
> > > > > > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in
> > place
> > > > > > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place,
as
> > the
> > > > > > > Silver Jews once said).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they
> > current
> > one
> > > > > > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more
> > efficient).
> > > > >
> > > > > Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> > > > >
> > > > Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
> > >
> > > The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on centuries of
> > > precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
> > > contemporary
> > > standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
> > > would have a field day.
> > >
> > Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is
unsurprising
> > that is the self consistent.
>
> What the fuck do you know?
As my above statement proves, a lot more than you.
> Clearly not very much, as it is not really
> a religious matter at all.
>
In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
seriously; which of course you already know.
> > > > > > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > > > > > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
> > contaminated
> > > > > > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive
loss?
> > > > > > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
> > irrelvancy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> > > > >
> > > > According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
> > >
> > > That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
> > > (most all historians would agree).
> > >
> > Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
> > happening?....Didn't think so
>
> Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
> Being funny, because this is just
> unreasonable.
>
If it has happened as you have claimed then it would be simple for you to
find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded to
back up your claims.
> > > > > > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning
you
> > may
> > wander
> > > > > > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head
off
> > would
> > be
> > > > > > a constructive attitude.
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> > > > >
> > > > Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
> > >
> > > It's unhealthy for somebody else, and you don't simply state facts
> > > (nobody does).
> > >
> > Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
audience),
> > that must mean I simply stated a fact.
>
> Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
>
I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I state
things simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I insulted you.
> > > > > > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> > > > >
> > > > Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people
being
> > > > allowed to defend themselves.
> > >
> > > Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
> >
> > Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
>
> Exactly so.
>
Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed etc to
the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum is
wrong.
> > > and people are
> > > allowed to defend themselves against *direct* attacks of various kinds
> > > (without tripping any get-off-the-scaffold-free switch).
> > >
> > Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them
repeatedly
> > with your desert eagle .50
> >
Obviously you agree?
> > > > > > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think
I
> > might
> > > > > > > be able to swing that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen
that
> > you
> > do
> > > > > > that from your replies to my other posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> > > > >
> > > > And still more of your irrelevancies.
> > >
> > > Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
> > >
> > Lets not and say we didn't.
>
> Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
> Okay? Okay?
>
Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is that you
are totally wrong and I am totally right.
> > > > > > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions
are
> > just
> > > > > > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times.
Infact I
> > have
> > > > > > just recently asked you to look it up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary
society
> > > > > from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> > > > > limits.)
> > > > >
> > > > Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
> > > > interaction is voluntary.
> > >
> > > I'm not seeing this.
> > >
> > If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human interaction
not
> > be voluntary?
>
> What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
>
When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle? Many
times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I have
refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you to
look it up."
> > > > > > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real
rock-bottom
> > > > > > > remainder.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that
the
> > writing
> > > > > > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a
sentence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the
Commonwealthy
> > > > > on the topic of English usage.
> > > > >
> > > > Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the
> > meaning of
> > > > your writings may be very different from your intention.
> > >
> > > I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for print
> > > eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
> > > there.
> > >
> > And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is appauling?
>
> It doesn't, that's a value-judgment and not a fact.
>
Not at all, when compared to the english rules for sentence structure we see
that many of your sentences violate these rules.
Reality is that is we disagree only one of us may be correct, the other is
by definition wrong.
> I'm never visiting New
> Zealand, and it's a shame 'cause I used to think New Zealanders were
> pretty cool and low-key.
>
Yes most are sheep.
And that is voluntray exchange of goods or servies for payment, to even
imply that is what I am referring to is to deny everything I have written to
date, but then as before you already knew that.
> > > But
> > > we're not.
> > >
> > And?
>
> So I don't care about this inexpert hatchet job.
>
Then how come you haven't been able to give any answering remaks to my
arguments?
> > > > > > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > > > > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly
don't
> > belong
> > > > > > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely
> > aggressive
> > > > > > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What extremely aggressive statements?
> > > > >
> > > > > "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda
cute,
> > > > > but frankly I got other things to do.)
> > > > >
> > > > Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
> > > > irrelevancies proves that.
> > >
> > > Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
> > > delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
> > >
> > Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so what
> > does that tell us?
>
> I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
>
Again with the irrelevancies and nonsence.
> > > > > > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > No it can not.
> > >
> > > Ask a lawyer.
> > >
> > Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
>
> Ask a lawyer, I'm not an expert.
>
Then don't pretend you are, I have told you the fact of it and that is all.
Yes, and the first thing they explained was that it is not your
responsibility to prevent perils or help others if you did not cause the
peril/problem etc.
> > > > > > > The US civil war,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a
little
> > while
> > > > > > ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to
me,
> > > > > too. The people against positions like yours won.
> > > > >
> > > > Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You
are
> > the
> > > > one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
> > > > You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is
similar
> > to
> > > > that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your
> > styatement
> > > > and appologise.
> > >
> > > I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with self-defense.
> >
> > You implied it and as far as slander is concered that is the same thing.
>
> No it's not,
Yes it is. If I were to say that a germany political party which came to
power in the 40's had the same principles as you, then that would be the
same as saying you are a nazi.
> although implication can be involved the burden of proof
> is higher if it's not explicitly said (and then immediately
> disavowed).
No the burden of proof is the same, the difference is that you must prove if
a reasonable person would make the connection.
> I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
>
No you are not.
> > > What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War are
> > > not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
> > > partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
> > > self-government, including individual freedom from government
> > > incursion).
> >
> > Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
>
> No, these people do.
>
The major difference between the two was slavery, as far as everything else
went they were virtually identical.
> > >
> > > > > > > Aeroplane, airplane
> > > > > > > colour, color
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little
bit
> > like
> > > > > > > the difference between Dutch and German.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> > >
> > > Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
>
> No answer here.
It is irrelevant, he did not spell words as you do, they had several
characters that are no longer in use by any dialect of english and as such
he did not spell words the way you do.
Jeff Rubard
The point is, you don't know all what I'm thinking and consequently
you don't know all what I'm saying, or not saying if I don't respond
to one of your many self-congratulations.
> > > > > > > They don't need to, reality tells us they are immoral.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Reality" doesn't tell me much, I think I got shafted like that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
> > > >
> > > > I do,
> > >
> > > Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
> > >
> > > > but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
> > > > about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
> > > >
> > > Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things that
> > > matter.
> >
> > Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
> >
> More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
> possible?
They're more important than you, and you're not ever correcting
yourself (the reliable sign that you care about the facts).
> > > > > > > > and like taxes
> > > > > > > > generally they were higher in the US in the "good old days".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Abolishing estate taxes wouldn't be a "conservative" move.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not at all, it would be a move towards freedom.
> > > >
> > > > For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial estates, I
> > > > suppose it would be.
> > >
> > > For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
> >
> > Lots of people don't leave estates.
>
> Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must be
> correct.
You're trying to vitiate the point, which is that it's a move that
would only help some people (and hurt the tax base, which is important
for everyone). Honestly, it'll work: a number of extremely wealthy
American businessmen are opposed to the repeal of estate taxes, but
even they hardly get a hearing today.
> > This is misleading.
> >
> No it is not.
You and I are not the judges of that.
> > > > Could we have a rider attached such that other
> > > > people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
> > > >
> > > Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them alone
> to do
> > > with what is theirs as they see fit.
> >
> > I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time;
>
> But you argue for what they earn.
What is that supposed to mean? Are we not supposed to talk about the
activities of businesses anymore?
> > I wish I could say the same of them,
>
> How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
As someone else once said the place it is my home, so where am I gonna
go?
> > and I've always had to clap
> > afterwards (but it's really no problem).
> >
> What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked away
> If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can always say
> no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or be
> punnished.
I've done that too; "Not a wise move". And to add another libertarian
point, the latter part about the government isn't quite true; if a US
government agent asked/ordered you to do something illegal, you could
get in trouble for doing it *or* not doing it.
> > > > > > > > They're answers, but not quite ripostes: you're not really "on
> point",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Blah blah blah, do you really have to use 11 words to say
> something
> you
> > > > > > > could do with less than five?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, there's a reason for added detail (avoiding cliche).
> > > > > >
> > > > > But you haven't added detail, all you have done is make me so bored
> with
> > > > > your post that I contemplate ignoring them.
> > > >
> > > > Who cares? You're in the wrong place at what appears to be the right
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > What don't you like having your beliefs to be shown as the nonsence and
> > > garbage they really are?
> > > Despite what you would like this newsgroup is free and open, that means
> I
> > > may tell anyone and everyone here exactly what I like.
> >
> > Oh, please, throw around some terms of oppobrium some more.
> >
> Facts and reason are what I use.
That's good, at least you've added a teeny bit of distance so other
people can use them too.
> > > > Please do ignore them.
> > > >
> > > And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs to be
> > > totally devoid of any substance?
> >
> > Whatever, fool.
> >
> And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he resorts to
> insuts.
The substantial arguments I make are here and elsewhere pertaining to
bigger issues. You don't have substantial arguments about personal
characteristics, that's something of a smokescreen which you are
heavily employing.
> > > > > > > > Right, but if you don't have a effective regulatory system in
> place
> > > > > > > > it's just too-bad-so-sad. (Could be Joe Namath in your place,
> as
> the
> > > > > > > > Silver Jews once said).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My system has a regulatory system far more efficient than they
> > > current
> > > one
> > > > > > > (common law is so obvious and simple that it has to be more
> efficient).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Common law is obvious and simple? Uhhhhhhh...
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is, do you know what common law is?
> > > >
> > > > The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on centuries of
> > > > precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
> > > > contemporary
> > > > standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
> > > > would have a field day.
> > > >
> > > Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is
> unsurprising
> > > that is the self consistent.
> >
> > What the fuck do you know?
>
> As my above statement proves, a lot more than you.
Well, I'm glad you feel that way. Usually I feel bad when I think
people are presenting poor arguments.
> > Clearly not very much, as it is not really
> > a religious matter at all.
> >
> In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
> seriously; which of course you already know.
They take precedent very seriously; they make it. It's what Anthony
Giddens calls a "double hermeneutic", where contemporary juridicial
attitudes and historical ones thread together in no very predictable
way.
> > > > > > > Since when would legal drugs be unlabeled?
> > > > > > > Since when would the legal seller of "E" sell a substitue or
> contaminated
> > > > > > > product and thereby open themselves to prosecution and massive
> loss?
> > > > > > > And that makes one more example of you trying to trap me on an
> irrelvancy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since when have people adulterated products? Known history.
> > > > > >
> > > > > According to you, yes. According to reality, no.
> > > >
> > > > That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
> > > > (most all historians would agree).
> > > >
> > > Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
> > > happening?....Didn't think so
> >
> > Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
> > Being funny, because this is just
> > unreasonable.
> >
> If it has happened as you have claimed then it would be simple for you to
> find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded to
> back up your claims.
Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
prior to refrigeration. Beyond that, there have always been ways to
rip people off a little bit in terms of what they're getting (a
lower-quality product inmixed with what they think they are buying).
This didn't used to be controversial.
> > > > > > > If you chose to interpret the words "No tresspass" as meaning
> you
> > > may
> > > wander
> > > > > > > on my property whenever you wish, my shotgun blowing your head
> off
> > > would
> > > be
> > > > > > > a constructive attitude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, I've never advanced to the gun-fantasy level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well fantasising about guns is unhealthy, I simply state facts.
> > > >
> > > > It's unhealthy for somebody else, and you don't simply state facts
> > > > (nobody does).
> > > >
> > > Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
> audience),
> > > that must mean I simply stated a fact.
> >
> > Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
> >
> I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I state
> things simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I insulted you.
You're insulting me all over these posts, and you're starting to make
demands I doubt I'll "be able to meet". Quit jiving (I doubt you'll
be able to meet that demand, though).
> > > > > > > By the police and by the people themselves if necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've *been* to the vigilantism level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to people
> being
> > > > > allowed to defend themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
> > >
> > > Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
> >
> > Exactly so.
> >
> Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed etc to
> the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
> statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum is
> wrong.
That's a "citizen's arrest".
> > > > and people are
> > > > allowed to defend themselves against *direct* attacks of various kinds
> > > > (without tripping any get-off-the-scaffold-free switch).
> > > >
> > > Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them
> repeatedly
> > > with your desert eagle .50
> > >
> Obviously you agree?
What if that's not what they really did? Why do you need to use a .50
caliber gun? (Maybe there's a good reason, I've never been into guns;
I just know that's ordinarily for putting big holes in big game).
> > > > > > > > I've had a lot of practice at similar things, I actually think
> I
> might
> > > > > > > > be able to swing that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean arguing when you are woefully inadequate? I have seen
> that
> > > you
> > > do
> > > > > > > that from your replies to my other posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know I am, but what are you *saying*?
> > > > > >
> > > > > And still more of your irrelevancies.
> > > >
> > > > Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
> > > >
> > > Lets not and say we didn't.
> >
> > Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
> > Okay? Okay?
> >
> Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is that you
> are totally wrong and I am totally right.
What are you gonna do with that?
> > > > > > > > Well, they're all trivially inconsistent in that conclusions
> are
> just
> > > > > > > > stated and iterated, they're not derived from premises.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ohh but they are, I have refered to the premis many times.
> Infact I
> have
> > > > > > > just recently asked you to look it up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you asking me to extrapolate the structure of contemporary
> society
> > > > > > from that one theorem? No can do. (See, I told you I know my
> > > > > > limits.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes you can, it is the basis of a free society; with it all human
> > > > > interaction is voluntary.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not seeing this.
> > > >
> > > If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human interaction
> not
> > > be voluntary?
> >
> > What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> >
> When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle? Many
> times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I have
> refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you to
> look it up."
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
mind.
> > > > > > > > It was written by a published writer, that's the real
> rock-bottom
> > > > > > > > remainder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact you have been published does not change the fact that
> the
> writing
> > > > > > > in question did not even fit the basic requirements of a
> sentence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever, I don't feel bad that I tune out most all the
> Commonwealthy
> > > > > > on the topic of English usage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well you should elarn basic sentence structure, as without it the
> meaning of
> > > > > your writings may be very different from your intention.
> > > >
> > > > I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for print
> > > > eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is appauling?
> >
> > It doesn't, that's a value-judgment and not a fact.
> >
> Not at all, when compared to the english rules for sentence structure we see
> that many of your sentences violate these rules.
Could you point me to the relevant *Fowler's* section?
I suspect this is the reality of you ruling.
> > I'm never visiting New
> > Zealand, and it's a shame 'cause I used to think New Zealanders were
> > pretty cool and low-key.
> >
> Yes most are sheep.
*I* like sheep (not usually like that).
As I said, I've never been on the dole and at present I'm not really
leeching off other people's money; quite the opposite, to my mind.
You're trying to obscure that.
> > > > But
> > > > we're not.
> > > >
> > > And?
> >
> > So I don't care about this inexpert hatchet job.
> >
> Then how come you haven't been able to give any answering remaks to my
> arguments?
Because you always award yourself the prize.
> > > > > > > > Okay, then I'm clearly the one defending your liberty (by not
> > > > > > > > attempting to kick you off a newsgroup you rather clearly
> don't
> belong
> > > > > > > > on, or bring other recriminations upon you for extremely
> aggressive
> > > > > > > > statements against me). I feel great!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What extremely aggressive statements?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I won! I won!" (Granted, I bet other people think it's kinda
> cute,
> > > > > > but frankly I got other things to do.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well I have won, the fact you delete the sections and answer with
> > > > > irrelevancies proves that.
> > > >
> > > > Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
> > > > delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
> > > >
> > > Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so what
> > > does that tell us?
> >
> > I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
> >
> Again with the irrelevancies and nonsence.
What you think is less relevant than you know.
> > > > > > > Stopping existing forces is not my responsibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can very well be under the common law you spoke so highly of
> > > > > > before.
> > > > > >
> > > > > No it can not.
> > > >
> > > > Ask a lawyer.
> > > >
> > > Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
> >
> > Ask a lawyer, I'm not an expert.
> >
> Then don't pretend you are, I have told you the fact of it and that is all.
I'm not pretending I'm in full control of the law, such that I can
fully understand when others are justified in acting in self-defense.
I don't believe this, or at least you didn't make it to tort law.
> > > > > > > > The US civil war,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean over a hundred (and fifty?) years ago, that isn't a
> little
> while
> > > > > > > ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It depends on your state of mind; it seems like a long time ago to
> me,
> > > > > > too. The people against positions like yours won.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Now that is slander, How is my position similar to the South's? You
> are
> the
> > > > > one wanting to enslave and control people, not me.
> > > > > You now have two opitions prove categorically how my position is
> similar
> to
> > > > > that of the American south or admitt you lied and retract your
> styatement
> > > > > and appologise.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with self-defense.
> > >
> > > You implied it and as far as slander is concered that is the same thing.
> >
> > No it's not,
>
> Yes it is. If I were to say that a germany political party which came to
> power in the 40's had the same principles as you, then that would be the
> same as saying you are a nazi.
I've never said that, in fact I'm on record as having said the
opposite about the US Republican Party (I can give you a reference if
you're interested, and I'm not sure you'd be).
> > although implication can be involved the burden of proof
> > is higher if it's not explicitly said (and then immediately
> > disavowed).
>
> No the burden of proof is the same, the difference is that you must prove if
> a reasonable person would make the connection.
That's right, and reasonable people don't jump to unshakeable
conclusions on scanty evidence (such as provided by implicature).
> > I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
> >
> No you are not.
I can't be responsible for it, which is the primary concern both in
criminal and civil law.
> > > > What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War are
> > > > not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
> > > > partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
> > > > self-government, including individual freedom from government
> > > > incursion).
> > >
> > > Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
> >
> > No, these people do.
> >
> The major difference between the two was slavery, as far as everything else
> went they were virtually identical.
That's true enough in terms of their governments (although many
Southerners won't acknowledge that), but the Confederacy had a
different idea of what a good government would be.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Aeroplane, airplane
> > > > > > > > colour, color
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The US orthorgraphy is older, not "corrupted"; it's a little
> bit
> like
> > > > > > > > the difference between Dutch and German.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> > > >
> > > > Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
> >
> > No answer here.
>
> It is irrelevant, he did not spell words as you do, they had several
> characters that are no longer in use by any dialect of english and as such
> he did not spell words the way you do.
He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
Jeff Rubard
Jeff Rubard
Why is that? What's going to happen if I don't? Why can't I cut
losses now?
> > Every time I talk to an "informed"
> > fellow like you, it costs me, and they end up winning even if there's
> > nobody around.
>
> When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
Many people think so, with some reason -- not because they know all
the facts, that's unreasonable.
> > Like I said, I'd consider myself delusional if I
> > awarded myself such plaudits without checking rather thorougly but
> > hey, I guess beggars can't be choosers and HE IS A BEGGAR.
> >
> Who is a beggar?
Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember? Not like those are
defamatory statements or anything.
> > > > > > > A published writer that uses double negatives, tisk tisk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those aren't double negatives (they're negating different things),
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What you
> should
> > > > > have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter
> etc.
> > > >
> > > > Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
> > >
> > > Massively inelegant.
> >
> > Do you hire people to write for you?
>
> No I don't need to, but you should.
That's not traditionally the response I've gotten (from anyone who's
ever known me, really, but including professional editors I've done
paid work for).
> > No? Don't care about your
> > editorial opinion, really. That's the way that is -- in reality,
> > anyway.
> >
> Care or not, I am still right.
I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
> > > > Grammatically, perfectly
> > > > correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
> > > >
> > > Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as far
> as
> > > English goes it is just plain wrong.
> >
> > It's correct enough wherever the surface grammatical form of English
> > obeys the laws of logic.
> >
> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by comparivies.
Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
> > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > I use those too (like Shakespeare and a cast of at least
> thousands).
> > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
> > > >
> > > > Don't agree, suit yourself.
> > >
> > > My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using the
> > > language.
> >
> > That's true, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As far as I
> > can tell, you don't really know the fact of the matter.
>
> Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
Because you're not saying interesting things and you're not saying
them repeatedly, your discourse seems to be wish-fulfillment rather
than teasing out aspects of some state of affairs. That can still
kick other people in the ass, though; don't worry.
> > That doesn't
> > bother me insofar as it doesn't hurt me; I am less concerned with you
> > than you with me. And how libertarian is that?
>
> I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
> advocating the use of force against me.
That wouldn't be me (unless you're engaged in dangerous illegal
conduct). Why are we still talking, really?
Jeff Rubard
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fbd...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > No answer at ll, interesting. Funny how we have gone down from
five
> > seperate
> > > > > > replies to just two, are you trying to cut your losses and reply
to
> > those
> > > > > > you can just waflle on endlessly about?
> > > > > >
> > > > And now only one.
> > >
> > > I am trying to cut my losses.
> >
> > Well that would mean you would have to give up communism.
>
> Why is that?
Because you can not defend it's principles.
> What's going to happen if I don't?
Well nothing really, other than the fact you wold be denying reason and
reality by clining to it.
> Why can't I cut losses now?
>
What losses?
> > > Every time I talk to an "informed"
> > > fellow like you, it costs me, and they end up winning even if there's
> > > nobody around.
> >
> > When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
>
> Many people think so, with some reason -- not because they know all
> the facts, that's unreasonable.
>
Again you try to forcus on the words and ignore the meaning.
> > > Like I said, I'd consider myself delusional if I
> > > awarded myself such plaudits without checking rather thorougly but
> > > hey, I guess beggars can't be choosers and HE IS A BEGGAR.
> > >
> > Who is a beggar?
>
> Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you want to
decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can the
taxation I suffer not be theft?
> Not like those are
> defamatory statements or anything.
>
How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it and
people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I disobey,
so now tell me how that is not theft?
> > > > > > Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What
you
> > should
> > > > > > have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter
> > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
> > > >
> > > > Massively inelegant.
> > >
> > > Do you hire people to write for you?
> >
> > No I don't need to, but you should.
>
> That's not traditionally the response I've gotten (from anyone who's
> ever known me, really, but including professional editors I've done
> paid work for).
>
And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps? A
socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a ten
year old?
> > > No? Don't care about your
> > > editorial opinion, really. That's the way that is -- in reality,
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > Care or not, I am still right.
>
> I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
>
Anything I would comment on anyway.
> > > > > Grammatically, perfectly
> > > > > correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
> > > > >
> > > > Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as
far
> > as
> > > > English goes it is just plain wrong.
> > >
> > > It's correct enough wherever the surface grammatical form of English
> > > obeys the laws of logic.
> > >
> > Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
>
> Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
>
It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
peare and a cast of at least
> > thousands).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't agree, suit yourself.
> > > >
> > > > My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using
the
> > > > language.
> > >
> > > That's true, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As far as I
> > > can tell, you don't really know the fact of the matter.
> >
> > Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
>
> Because you're not saying interesting things and you're not saying
> them repeatedly, your discourse seems to be wish-fulfillment rather
> than teasing out aspects of some state of affairs. That can still
> kick other people in the ass, though; don't worry.
>
Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then give
examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
> > > That doesn't
> > > bother me insofar as it doesn't hurt me; I am less concerned with you
> > > than you with me. And how libertarian is that?
> >
> > I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
> > advocating the use of force against me.
>
> That wouldn't be me (unless you're engaged in dangerous illegal
> conduct). Why are we still talking, really?
You advocate taxes, vicimless crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully
interact with others; this means you are advocating the use of force against
me.
Stuart Hawkins
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fbd...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fbc...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fb9...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What, do I have to jump up and down and scream for someone
else's
> > ice
> > > > > > > cream? (Note for US readers: No, you really don't. I swear!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Well that is what you are doing when you have estate taxes.
> > > > > >
> > > > Funny how you refuse to answer some things.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't advise speculating about my mental states, there are a lot
> > > of factors (collateral beliefs and activities) involved.
> > >
> > Now that really is irrelevant. I said that it is funny that you refuse
to
> > answer some things, your mental states and collateral beliefs and
activities
> > are irrelevant to that statement, as they are irrelevant to the question
I
> > asked earlier.
>
> The point is, you don't know all what I'm thinking and consequently
> you don't know all what I'm saying, or not saying if I don't respond
> to one of your many self-congratulations.
>
above statement is irrelevant to the point.
> > > > > > Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do,
> > > >
> > > > Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
> > > >
> > > > > but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
> > > > > about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
> > > > >
> > > > Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things
that
> > > > matter.
> > >
> > > Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
> > >
> > More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
> > possible?
>
> They're more important than you, and you're not ever correcting
> yourself (the reliable sign that you care about the facts).
>
I will correct myself when it is shown that I am wrong, as this has not
occured in our threads you will not have seen it. Your above statement is
akin to an alien landing blind in the middle of the saharrah desert and
boldly claiming the entire planet is the same.
> > > > > For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial
estates, I
> > > > > suppose it would be.
> > > >
> > > > For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
> > >
> > > Lots of people don't leave estates.
> >
> > Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must
be
> > correct.
>
> You're trying to vitiate the point, which is that it's a move that
> would only help some people
Freedom helps everyoner
> (and hurt the tax base, which is important
> for everyone).
No it is not, the taxes have a deadweight loss and are stolen from the
people that earnt them. No act of force can be beneficial.
> Honestly, it'll work: a number of extremely wealthy
> American businessmen are opposed to the repeal of estate taxes, but
> even they hardly get a hearing today.
>
So you have a big crowd howling for what they didn't earn, so what?
The people who have it who either earnt it or were given it freely are the
only ones with any right to it.
The mistake you make is assuming the government has the right to tax to
start with.
> > > This is misleading.
> > >
> > No it is not.
>
> You and I are not the judges of that.
>
Reason is and reason clearly shows that it is a restriction applied to
everyone, a restriction that has been removed. This means that freedom has
increased.
> > > > > Could we have a rider attached such that other
> > > > > people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
> > > > >
> > > > Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them
alone
> > to do
> > > > with what is theirs as they see fit.
> > >
> > > I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time;
> >
> > But you argue for what they earn.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
You want their earnings, you want them to be taxed.
> Are we not supposed to talk about the
> activities of businesses anymore?
>
Talk all you want but so long as they do not initiate the use of force, you
nor the government has no right to interfere.
> > > I wish I could say the same of them,
> >
> > How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
>
> As someone else once said the place it is my home, so where am I gonna
> go?
>
They came into your home and made you listen to them. They only way they
could make you listen is if they broke into your house and put a gun to your
head. I can tell you right now they didn't use force on you and you didn't
have to listen.
> > > and I've always had to clap
> > > afterwards (but it's really no problem).
> > >
> > What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked
away
> > If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can always
say
> > no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or be
> > punnished.
>
> I've done that too; "Not a wise move". And to add another libertarian
> point, the latter part about the government isn't quite true; if a US
> government agent asked/ordered you to do something illegal, you could
> get in trouble for doing it *or* not doing it.
>
An irrelevant point, the abuse of power you suggest is far more liekly in
your system than mine and does not invalidate my statement in any way shape
or form. Unless the agent happens to be the government, which would be
pardoxical to say the least.
Only if they are saying exactly what I am saying.
> > > > > Please do ignore them.
> > > > >
> > > > And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs
to be
> > > > totally devoid of any substance?
> > >
> > > Whatever, fool.
> > >
> > And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he resorts
to
> > insuts.
>
> The substantial arguments I make are here and elsewhere pertaining to
> bigger issues.
Where? did you post them in invisible text?
> You don't have substantial arguments about personal
> characteristics, that's something of a smokescreen which you are
> heavily employing.
>
Personal characterisitcs?
> > > > > The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on
centuries of
> > > > > precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
> > > > > contemporary
> > > > > standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
> > > > > would have a field day.
> > > > >
> > > > Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is
> > unsurprising
> > > > that is the self consistent.
> > >
> > > What the fuck do you know?
> >
> > As my above statement proves, a lot more than you.
>
> Well, I'm glad you feel that way. Usually I feel bad when I think
> people are presenting poor arguments.
>
Well don't feel too bad about how poor your argument is.
> > > Clearly not very much, as it is not really
> > > a religious matter at all.
> > >
> > In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
> > seriously; which of course you already know.
>
> They take precedent very seriously; they make it.
They follow what other judges said, that is what following precident means.
> It's what Anthony Giddens calls a "double hermeneutic", where contemporary
juridicial
> attitudes and historical ones thread together in no very predictable way.
>
That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he must be
incorrect.
> > > > > That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
> > > > > (most all historians would agree).
> > > > >
> > > > Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
> > > > happening?....Didn't think so
> > >
> > > Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
> > > Being funny, because this is just
> > > unreasonable.
> > >
> > If it has happened as you have claimed then it would be simple for you
to
> > find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded to
> > back up your claims.
>
> Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
> speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
> some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
> prior to refrigeration.
And such information is readily given.
> Beyond that, there have always been ways to
> rip people off a little bit in terms of what they're getting (a
> lower-quality product inmixed with what they think they are buying).
> This didn't used to be controversial.
>
But now that it can be proved not even the unscrupulous attempt it as the
legal cases would be crippling
> > > > Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
> > audience),
> > > > that must mean I simply stated a fact.
> > >
> > > Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
> > >
> > I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I
state
> > things simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I insulted
you.
>
> You're insulting me all over these posts,
Where? come one, where do i insult you?
I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
> and you're starting to make
> demands I doubt I'll "be able to meet".
Like backing up your claims?
> Quit jiving (I doubt you'll
> be able to meet that demand, though).
>
I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
> > > > > > Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to
people
> > being
> > > > > > allowed to defend themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
> > > >
> > > > Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
> > >
> > > Exactly so.
> > >
> > Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed etc
to
> > the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
> > statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum is
> > wrong.
>
> That's a "citizen's arrest".
>
That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens arrest
but they are a vigilante.
> > > > Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them
> > repeatedly
> > > > with your desert eagle .50
> > > >
> > Obviously you agree?
>
> What if that's not what they really did?
That wasn't the sceanrio I asked you about, but i shall answer anyway.
> Why do you need to use a .50
> caliber gun?
To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to harm you
with the knife.
> (Maybe there's a good reason, I've never been into guns;
> I just know that's ordinarily for putting big holes in big game).
>
It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
> > > > > > And still more of your irrelevancies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > Lets not and say we didn't.
> > >
> > > Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
> > > Okay? Okay?
> > >
> > Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is that
you
> > are totally wrong and I am totally right.
>
> What are you gonna do with that?
>
Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you are so
irrational that you refuse to accept that.
> > > > > I'm not seeing this.
> > > > >
> > > > If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human
interaction
> > not
> > > > be voluntary?
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> > >
> > When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> > When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle?
Many
> > times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I
have
> > refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you
to
> > look it up."
>
> "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
> mind.
>
Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
> > > > > I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for
print
> > > > > eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
> > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is
appauling?
> > >
> > > It doesn't, that's a value-judgment and not a fact.
> > >
> > Not at all, when compared to the english rules for sentence structure we
see
> > that many of your sentences violate these rules.
>
> Could you point me to the relevant *Fowler's* section?
>
I stated this particular part of our thread refering to one such instance.
> > > > > > You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I
said
> > the
> > > > > > answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set
you
> > straight.
> > > > > > Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's important to you.
> > > > >
> > > > It is important to reality, to say otherwise is to deny reality.
> > >
> > > Reality is that you are right and I am wrong?
> >
> > Reality is that is we disagree only one of us may be correct, the other
is
> > by definition wrong.
>
> I suspect this is the reality of you ruling.
>
No it is just plain reality, if people do not agree only one person may be
correct in this sort of thing.
> > > I'm never visiting New
> > > Zealand, and it's a shame 'cause I used to think New Zealanders were
> > > pretty cool and low-key.
> > >
> > Yes most are sheep.
>
> *I* like sheep (not usually like that).
>
Yes you call them usefull idiots.
> > > > > You're claiming all kinds of things that would materially
> > > > > (economically) hurt me if we were discussing occupational issues.
> > > >
> > > > Like what? You can't possibly mean cutting you off from other
people's
> > > > money?
> > >
> > > What is exchange but offering goods for other people's money?
> > >
> > And that is voluntray exchange of goods or servies for payment, to even
> > imply that is what I am referring to is to deny everything I have
written to
> > date, but then as before you already knew that.
>
> As I said, I've never been on the dole and at present I'm not really
> leeching off other people's money; quite the opposite, to my mind.
> You're trying to obscure that.
>
Not at all. You argue for using other people's money to fund what you
believe is worthwhile, you argue for taxes. That is the extent of my
comments on you stealing.
> > > > And?
> > >
> > > So I don't care about this inexpert hatchet job.
> > >
> > Then how come you haven't been able to give any answering remaks to my
> > arguments?
>
> Because you always award yourself the prize.
>
I award myself the prize because you do not even attempt to compete.
> > > > > Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
> > > > > delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
> > > > >
> > > > Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so
what
> > > > does that tell us?
> > >
> > > I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
> > >
> > Again with the irrelevancies and nonsence.
>
> What you think is less relevant than you know.
>
How so? How is wanting people to leave me alone not relevant?
> > > > > > No it can not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask a lawyer.
> > > > >
> > > > Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
> > >
> > > Ask a lawyer, I'm not an expert.
> > >
> > Then don't pretend you are, I have told you the fact of it and that is
all.
>
> I'm not pretending I'm in full control of the law, such that I can
> fully understand when others are justified in acting in self-defense.
>
Reason decides if an action is justified for self-defence.
> > > > Neither do I, i get mine from university. The reference to Seinfeld
is a
> > > > popular culture reference that reinforces my point and explains it
to
> > the
> > > > masses.
> > >
> > > Did you study law?
> > >
> > Yes, and the first thing they explained was that it is not your
> > responsibility to prevent perils or help others if you did not cause the
> > peril/problem etc.
>
> I don't believe this, or at least you didn't make it to tort law.
>
1. Seeing as tort law is one of the very first things i learnt in law, i
fail to see how that is possible
2. I have told you what I learnt in a law paper at univeristy, now you can
either accept it or prove it wrong. Do not tell me you think it is wrong,
tell me why it is wrong.
Fact of the matter is I am right and you are wrong, any peril I do not cause
is not my responsibility.
> > > > > I didn't say you were espousing that; you are quick with
self-defense.
> > > >
> > > > You implied it and as far as slander is concered that is the same
thing.
> > >
> > > No it's not,
> >
> > Yes it is. If I were to say that a germany political party which came to
> > power in the 40's had the same principles as you, then that would be the
> > same as saying you are a nazi.
>
> I've never said that, in fact I'm on record as having said the
> opposite about the US Republican Party (I can give you a reference if
> you're interested, and I'm not sure you'd be).
>
Argghh did you read what I wrote?
> > > although implication can be involved the burden of proof
> > > is higher if it's not explicitly said (and then immediately
> > > disavowed).
> >
> > No the burden of proof is the same, the difference is that you must
prove if
> > a reasonable person would make the connection.
>
> That's right, and reasonable people don't jump to unshakeable
> conclusions on scanty evidence (such as provided by implicature).
>
And now we have you avoiding the point yet again. You said the burden of
proof is different, I said that it is not. The fact is that it isn't
different, the only difference between implication and flat out statement is
that you must additionally prove that reasonable people would make the
'connection'. You have to essentially prove two things, not have the burdens
of proof shifted.
> > > I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
> > >
> > No you are not.
>
> I can't be responsible for it, which is the primary concern both in
> criminal and civil law.
>
You aren't responsible for something you did?
> > > > > What I actually said is that issues arising from the Civil War
are
> > > > > not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
> > > > > partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
> > > > > self-government, including individual freedom from government
> > > > > incursion).
> > > >
> > > > Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
> > >
> > > No, these people do.
> > >
> > The major difference between the two was slavery, as far as everything
else
> > went they were virtually identical.
>
> That's true enough in terms of their governments (although many
> Southerners won't acknowledge that), but the Confederacy had a
> different idea of what a good government would be.
>
A very minor difference in the idea.
> > > > > > > > Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
> > >
> > > No answer here.
> >
> > It is irrelevant, he did not spell words as you do, they had several
> > characters that are no longer in use by any dialect of english and as
such
> > he did not spell words the way you do.
>
> He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
>
He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the other ones
that were replaced.
Jeff Rubard
Now we come to the payoff. Throughout this (monthlong) discussion, it's
rather clearly been the case that it is much more important for you to
take away a negative impression of me as a person from this thread than
the converse. This statement really makes any construal of any of my
actions, past, present and future under that description "factually
inaccurate", no matter who the reader is nor what the circumstances are:
"He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to say.
It's really pretty sinister.
>>What's going to happen if I don't?
>
>
> Well nothing really, other than the fact you wold be denying reason and
> reality by clining to it.
If you were to effectively propagate such an image of me and "militate"
against other images, that'd be harm enough, believe you me.
>
>>Why can't I cut losses now?
>>
>
> What losses?
>
Time and energy spent talking to you.
>>>>Every time I talk to an "informed"
>>>>fellow like you, it costs me, and they end up winning even if there's
>>>>nobody around.
>>>
>>>When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
>>
>>Many people think so, with some reason -- not because they know all
>>the facts, that's unreasonable.
>>
>
> Again you try to forcus on the words and ignore the meaning.
>
That's funny for me.
>>>>Like I said, I'd consider myself delusional if I
>>>>awarded myself such plaudits without checking rather thorougly but
>>>>hey, I guess beggars can't be choosers and HE IS A BEGGAR.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Who is a beggar?
>>
>>Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
>
>
> Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you want to
> decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can the
> taxation I suffer not be theft?
>
That's a libelous comment; I don't want what you earn, I want what *I*
earn, and seeing as how you're tens of thousands of miles away I don't
expect these considerations to ever effectively clash. Except if you
want to call me a thief without any evidence, which you rather clearly
do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not; no more
of that at all. I mean it.
>>Not like those are
>>defamatory statements or anything.
>>
>
> How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it and
> people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I disobey,
> so now tell me how that is not theft?
>
And here's the vague construal that makes me out to be just the
more-or-less-conscious representative of a vast thieving group. I wish
I knew about them, too. In terms of "threats and punishment" for
disobeying the law, it seems like you're unhappy about having to live in
civil society, doesn't seem to have much to do with this newsgroup.
>>>>>>>Yes but they are in the same sentence about the same point. What
>
> you
>
>>> should
>>>
>>>>>>>have done is say that you are above cheap shots not underwritter
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>>>>Stylistically, it's a little inelegant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Massively inelegant.
>>>>
>>>>Do you hire people to write for you?
>>>
>>>No I don't need to, but you should.
>>
>>That's not traditionally the response I've gotten (from anyone who's
>>ever known me, really, but including professional editors I've done
>>paid work for).
>>
>
> And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps? A
> socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a ten
> year old?
>
Well, they cut out the part about Derrida once, so I'm going to be a
little unkind and venture to say: right on the upper edge of your
comprehension abilities. No, it was not political writing; and my jobs
since (I haven't written for print for many years, but I can't afford to
stand on principles) have included writing technical reports and such as
a big part of my duties. So you're really hitting pretty close to home
in the name of "anti-communism" and I'm telling you there's NO CALL; a
responsible person would be curbing their dogma by now.
>>>>No? Don't care about your
>>>>editorial opinion, really. That's the way that is -- in reality,
>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Care or not, I am still right.
>>
>>I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
>>
>
> Anything I would comment on anyway.
>
That's a massively unreasonable standpoint, and again, a little
sinister. Collateral beliefs influence things I say, often to
disturbing degrees: sometimes I have to tell myself I'm *not* just
writing about things I heard in rock songs, for example, because after a
fashion I believe a lot of views expressed in popular culture. But even
if you're not that "mainstream", it's just a technical matter that
saying you know enough about someone to provide a completely accurate
picture of them for public purposes tells people more about your
motivation than your knowledge-base; you couldn't. Furthermore, I
wouldn't hire you to represent me and what you don't know CAN HURT YOU
when you practice to "defeat" unreasonably positive views of another
person in the minds of other people. You shouldn't have to ask a lawyer
about that, but you can.
>>>>>>Grammatically, perfectly
>>>>>>correct (they each change the meaning in a different way).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually it is grammatically incorrect, maybe not in America, but as
>
> far
>
>>> as
>>>
>>>>>English goes it is just plain wrong.
>>>>
>>>>It's correct enough wherever the surface grammatical form of English
>>>>obeys the laws of logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
>>
>>Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
>>
>
> It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
>
Well, that's pretty close to my own view but the point is saying that
requires that you give up responsibility for knowing every relevant fact
of the matter: after all, you could be wrong, even about seemingly
unshakeable certainties. In other words, you're not being
intellectually responsible here.
>
> peare and a cast of at least
>
>>> thousands).
>>>
>>>>>>>Irrelevant, it is still incorrect useage of the anguage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't agree, suit yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>My agreement or not does not change the fact it is incorrectly using
>
> the
>
>>>>>language.
>>>>
>>>>That's true, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As far as I
>>>>can tell, you don't really know the fact of the matter.
>>>
>>>Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
>>
>>Because you're not saying interesting things and you're not saying
>>them repeatedly, your discourse seems to be wish-fulfillment rather
>>than teasing out aspects of some state of affairs. That can still
>>kick other people in the ass, though; don't worry.
>>
>
> Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then give
> examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
>
That's one right there; you've expressed valuations of those "facts" as
well.
>>>>That doesn't
>>>>bother me insofar as it doesn't hurt me; I am less concerned with you
>>>>than you with me. And how libertarian is that?
>>>
>>>I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
>>>advocating the use of force against me.
>>
>>That wouldn't be me (unless you're engaged in dangerous illegal
>>conduct). Why are we still talking, really?
>
>
> You advocate taxes, vicimless crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully
> interact with others; this means you are advocating the use of force against
> me.
>
I don't like this at all. I am not advocating the use of force against
you, and do not license the construal of "advocating taxes, victimless
crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully interact with others" as
doing so because that would give you or someone like you carte blanche
in your mind to do whatever the hell you wanted to this "tyrant", who
could be anyone out of the vast majority of residents of the United
States (and perhaps New Zealand). Pretty jivey, *pretty dangerous*; I
think you remind me of a real American shakedown artist I know more than
Neil Finn.
Jeff
Jeff Rubard
A lot of what you say is, such as speculating about my motives for
writing a certain way. For all you know, my emails could be modified by
other hands prior to your reading them. (Isn't that right?) Ordinarily
that's not too important, but you've really set yourself up to have to
know a lot more about me than is effectively possible.
>>>>>>>Well then perhaps you should apply reason to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do,
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why do you ignore the facts that such activity uncovers?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>but that's not actually likely to generate substantive truths
>>>>>>about other people's thoughts on most understandings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things
>
> that
>
>>>>>matter.
>>>>
>>>>Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
>>>>
>>>
>>>More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
>>>possible?
>>
>>They're more important than you, and you're not ever correcting
>>yourself (the reliable sign that you care about the facts).
>>
>
> I will correct myself when it is shown that I am wrong, as this has not
> occured in our threads you will not have seen it. Your above statement is
> akin to an alien landing blind in the middle of the saharrah desert and
> boldly claiming the entire planet is the same.
>
That's pretty funny, but I don't think like that; I correct myself when
I have been shown (sometimes just by looking at something I've written)
to be perhaps not knowledgeable enough about the matter at hand.
Compare with you, who have made no important errors in this thread.
Perhaps that's why I'm finding this so tiresome.
>>>>>>For children of people wealthy enough to leave substantial
>
> estates, I
>
>>>>>>suppose it would be.
>>>>>
>>>>>For everyone, nobody would be bound by this forceful constraint.
>>>>
>>>>Lots of people don't leave estates.
>>>
>>>Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must
>
> be
>
>>>correct.
>>
>>You're trying to vitiate the point, which is that it's a move that
>>would only help some people
>
>
> Freedom helps everyoner
>
That's a pretty vague statement; infrastructure helps everyone in a much
more definite way (that's why we're here - the Internet wasn't invented
by private corporations, rather ARPA). But infrastructure requires taxes.
>>(and hurt the tax base, which is important
>>for everyone).
>
>
> No it is not, the taxes have a deadweight loss and are stolen from the
> people that earnt them. No act of force can be beneficial.
>
See above. If you don't like "infrastructure", get off the Internet.
(I'm serious, and that is a pretty vague statement as well.)
>>Honestly, it'll work: a number of extremely wealthy
>>American businessmen are opposed to the repeal of estate taxes, but
>>even they hardly get a hearing today.
>>
>
> So you have a big crowd howling for what they didn't earn, so what?
> The people who have it who either earnt it or were given it freely are the
> only ones with any right to it.
> The mistake you make is assuming the government has the right to tax to
> start with.
>
*I* don't have a big crowd; there's no equivalent to your chuckle crew
(still unexplained) looking over my shoulder as I write this.
>>>>This is misleading.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No it is not.
>>
>>You and I are not the judges of that.
>>
>
> Reason is and reason clearly shows that it is a restriction applied to
> everyone, a restriction that has been removed. This means that freedom has
> increased.
>
I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>>>>>Could we have a rider attached such that other
>>>>>>people don't have to cheer them on? Then we'd be talking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ohh you don't have to cheer them on, you just have to leave them
>
> alone
>
>>> to do
>>>
>>>>>with what is theirs as they see fit.
>>>>
>>>>I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time;
>>>
>>>But you argue for what they earn.
>>
>>What is that supposed to mean?
>
>
> You want their earnings, you want them to be taxed.
>
Me and what army? The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
taxation, that's not a communist thing.
>>Are we not supposed to talk about the
>>activities of businesses anymore?
>>
>
> Talk all you want but so long as they do not initiate the use of force, you
> nor the government has no right to interfere.
>
That's pretty funny, because you can't talk all you want (non-disclosure
agreements) and almost anything an aggrieved worker might do could be
construed as "initiating force" due to arguments like yours from
corporate lackeys.
>>>>I wish I could say the same of them,
>>>
>>>How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
>>
>>As someone else once said the place it is my home, so where am I gonna
>>go?
>>
>
> They came into your home and made you listen to them. They only way they
> could make you listen is if they broke into your house and put a gun to your
> head. I can tell you right now they didn't use force on you and you didn't
> have to listen.
>
They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around; but
those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not? They don't really
indicate the absence of coercion, as you are very quick to proclaim
(you're telling yourself and other "free men" that).
>>>>and I've always had to clap
>>>>afterwards (but it's really no problem).
>>>>
>>>
>>>What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked
>
> away
>
>>>If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can always
>
> say
>
>>>no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or be
>>>punnished.
>>
>>I've done that too; "Not a wise move". And to add another libertarian
>>point, the latter part about the government isn't quite true; if a US
>>government agent asked/ordered you to do something illegal, you could
>>get in trouble for doing it *or* not doing it.
>>
>
> An irrelevant point, the abuse of power you suggest is far more liekly in
> your system than mine and does not invalidate my statement in any way shape
> or form. Unless the agent happens to be the government, which would be
> pardoxical to say the least.
>
I don't have a system, I'm not a Soviet-bloc supporter. (Is that
surprising? It should be, but there are some things which need saying
rather than reasonable assuming.)
Oh my.
>>>>>>Please do ignore them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And miss out on the continuing fun of showing you and your beliefs
>
> to be
>
>>>>>totally devoid of any substance?
>>>>
>>>>Whatever, fool.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he resorts
>
> to
>
>>>insuts.
>>
>>The substantial arguments I make are here and elsewhere pertaining to
>>bigger issues.
>
>
> Where? did you post them in invisible text?
>
Maybe it's invisible to you, I don't know.
>>You don't have substantial arguments about personal
>>characteristics, that's something of a smokescreen which you are
>>heavily employing.
>>
>
> Personal characterisitcs?
>
"So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
>>>>>>The system of law in English-speaking countries: based on
>
> centuries of
>
>>>>>>precedent and the empirically-tempered judgment of jurists. By
>>>>>>contemporary
>>>>>>standards of uniformity it's kind of amazing it works at all; ISO
>>>>>>would have a field day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Given the fact that judges religously follow precident it is
>>>
>>> unsurprising
>>>
>>>>>that is the self consistent.
>>>>
>>>>What the fuck do you know?
>>>
>>>As my above statement proves, a lot more than you.
>>
>>Well, I'm glad you feel that way. Usually I feel bad when I think
>>people are presenting poor arguments.
>>
>
> Well don't feel too bad about how poor your argument is.
>
I see I haven't stopped beating my wife yet, but I guess you're being
pretty nice about it.
>>>>Clearly not very much, as it is not really
>>>>a religious matter at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
>>>seriously; which of course you already know.
>>
>>They take precedent very seriously; they make it.
>
>
> They follow what other judges said, that is what following precident means.
>
It's never spelled "precident", Commonwealth or no, and the following
requires judgment-calls you and I aren't entitled to make.
>>It's what Anthony Giddens calls a "double hermeneutic", where contemporary
>
> juridicial
>
>>attitudes and historical ones thread together in no very predictable way.
>>
>
> That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he must be
> incorrect.
>
They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
>>>>>>That's not something I thought up, that's a pretty common judgment
>>>>>>(most all historians would agree).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you would have no problem telling me of examples of this
>>>>>happening?....Didn't think so
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
>>>>Being funny, because this is just
>>>>unreasonable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it has happened as you have claimed then it would be simple for you
>
> to
>
>>>find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded to
>>>back up your claims.
>>
>>Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
>>speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
>>some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
>>prior to refrigeration.
>
>
> And such information is readily given.
>
"Just a couple maggots, I swear. They'll give it a real good flavor."
Do you think most sellers would say something like that?
>>Beyond that, there have always been ways to
>>rip people off a little bit in terms of what they're getting (a
>>lower-quality product inmixed with what they think they are buying).
>>This didn't used to be controversial.
>>
>
> But now that it can be proved not even the unscrupulous attempt it as the
> legal cases would be crippling
>
That's not true at all, as the legal case can be crippling, are not
necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
corporations.
>>>>>Well I stated a fact in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
>>>
>>> audience),
>>>
>>>>>that must mean I simply stated a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I
>
> state
>
>>>things simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I insulted
>
> you.
>
>>You're insulting me all over these posts,
>
>
> Where? come one, where do i insult you?
> I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
>
This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
>>and you're starting to make
>>demands I doubt I'll "be able to meet".
>
>
> Like backing up your claims?
>
Your evidentiary standard is whether you agree with something.
>>Quit jiving (I doubt you'll
>>be able to meet that demand, though).
>>
>
> I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
>
It is an art you can cultivate, this is true; but you can just do it, too.
>>>>>>>Ohh no vigilaties would be frowned upon, I am refefring to
>
> people
>
>>> being
>>>
>>>>>>>allowed to defend themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed etc
>
> to
>
>>>the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
>>>statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum is
>>>wrong.
>>
>>That's a "citizen's arrest".
>>
>
> That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens arrest
> but they are a vigilante.
>
No; they're following the letter of the law. You're opening a door to
lynch mobs.
>>>>>Yes, if someone tries to mug you with a knife you may shoot them
>>>
>>> repeatedly
>>>
>>>>>with your desert eagle .50
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously you agree?
>>
>>What if that's not what they really did?
>
>
> That wasn't the sceanrio I asked you about, but i shall answer anyway.
>
>
>>Why do you need to use a .50
>>caliber gun?
>
>
> To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to harm you
> with the knife.
>
Well, we've established you're not a cop, since a fatality is never the
desired outcome of a confrontation with a "perp".
>> (Maybe there's a good reason, I've never been into guns;
>>I just know that's ordinarily for putting big holes in big game).
>>
>
> It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
>
I haven't seen those movies.
>>>>>>>And still more of your irrelevancies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Okay. Let's agree to disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Lets not and say we didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
>>>>Okay? Okay?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is that
>
> you
>
>>>are totally wrong and I am totally right.
>>
>>What are you gonna do with that?
>>
>
> Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you are so
> irrational that you refuse to accept that.
>
I'm not into sitting, and I'm not self-satisfied. I'll leave
irrationality calls to a "third party".
>>>>>>I'm not seeing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If nobody may use force or coercion then how may any human
>
> interaction
>
>>> not
>>>
>>>>>be voluntary?
>>>>
>>>>What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
>>>>
>>>
>>>When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
>>>When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle?
>
> Many
>
>>>times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I
>
> have
>
>>>refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you
>
> to
>
>>>look it up."
>>
>>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
>>mind.
>>
>
> Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
>
The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away"; it's part of
life, like usury (which is a kind of economic force, and I mean this in
a pretty non-judgmental way).
>>>>>>I guess I should have learned that before I started writing for
>
> print
>
>>>>>>eight years ago, it wasn't getting any easier to learn for a while
>>>>>>there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And how does that change the fact your sentence structure is
>
> appauling?
>
>>>>It doesn't, that's a value-judgment and not a fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all, when compared to the english rules for sentence structure we
>
> see
>
>>>that many of your sentences violate these rules.
>>
>>Could you point me to the relevant *Fowler's* section?
>>
>
> I stated this particular part of our thread refering to one such instance.
>
I want to hear it from the source.
>>>>>>>You said business did not pay for the infrastructure it used, I
>
> said
>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>answer to that is to have a free market. You disagreed, I set
>
> you
>
>>> straight.
>>>
>>>>>>>Therefore the point was I was right and you were wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it's important to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is important to reality, to say otherwise is to deny reality.
>>>>
>>>>Reality is that you are right and I am wrong?
>>>
>>>Reality is that is we disagree only one of us may be correct, the other
>
> is
>
>>>by definition wrong.
>>
>>I suspect this is the reality of you ruling.
>>
>
> No it is just plain reality, if people do not agree only one person may be
> correct in this sort of thing.
>
I think most people wouldn't agree with that.
>>>>I'm never visiting New
>>>>Zealand, and it's a shame 'cause I used to think New Zealanders were
>>>>pretty cool and low-key.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes most are sheep.
>>
>>*I* like sheep (not usually like that).
>>
>
> Yes you call them usefull idiots.
>
No, you can't.
>>>>>>You're claiming all kinds of things that would materially
>>>>>>(economically) hurt me if we were discussing occupational issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like what? You can't possibly mean cutting you off from other
>
> people's
>
>>>>>money?
>>>>
>>>>What is exchange but offering goods for other people's money?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And that is voluntray exchange of goods or servies for payment, to even
>>>imply that is what I am referring to is to deny everything I have
>
> written to
>
>>>date, but then as before you already knew that.
>>
>>As I said, I've never been on the dole and at present I'm not really
>>leeching off other people's money; quite the opposite, to my mind.
>>You're trying to obscure that.
>>
>
> Not at all. You argue for using other people's money to fund what you
> believe is worthwhile, you argue for taxes. That is the extent of my
> comments on you stealing.
>
Taxes are stealing? There are a lot of thieves, including people that
"steal from themselves" (like me).
>>>>>And?
>>>>
>>>>So I don't care about this inexpert hatchet job.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then how come you haven't been able to give any answering remaks to my
>>>arguments?
>>
>>Because you always award yourself the prize.
>>
>
> I award myself the prize because you do not even attempt to compete.
>
Well, enjoy it.
>>>>>>Man, I wish I could do that sort of thing rather than consider it
>>>>>>delusional. You seem to be having a good time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well what I said did actually happen and is continuing to occur, so
>
> what
>
>>>>>does that tell us?
>>>>
>>>>I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again with the irrelevancies and nonsence.
>>
>>What you think is less relevant than you know.
>>
>
> How so? How is wanting people to leave me alone not relevant?
>
I'd like you to leave me and the rest of the people here on this
newsgroup alone right now, and your arguments as to why you can't do
this in good conscience are truly lame.
>>>>>>>No it can not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ask a lawyer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Any peril I did not cause is not my responsibility, that is the law.
>>>>
>>>>Ask a lawyer, I'm not an expert.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then don't pretend you are, I have told you the fact of it and that is
>
> all.
>
>>I'm not pretending I'm in full control of the law, such that I can
>>fully understand when others are justified in acting in self-defense.
>>
>
> Reason decides if an action is justified for self-defence.
>
I.e., you decide. Cute.
>>>>>Neither do I, i get mine from university. The reference to Seinfeld
>
> is a
>
>>>>>popular culture reference that reinforces my point and explains it
>
> to
>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>masses.
>>>>
>>>>Did you study law?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and the first thing they explained was that it is not your
>>>responsibility to prevent perils or help others if you did not cause the
>>>peril/problem etc.
>>
>>I don't believe this, or at least you didn't make it to tort law.
>>
>
> 1. Seeing as tort law is one of the very first things i learnt in law, i
> fail to see how that is possible
Do you not have joint and several liability in NZ? You can be
(economically/legally) responsible for things people associated with you
do, even if you didn't know about the action and wouldn't have approved.
It's to keep "double-book accounting" out of civil law, and it's a
reality, especially for people not operating within limited-liability
corporations.
>>>Yes it is. If I were to say that a germany political party which came to
>>>power in the 40's had the same principles as you, then that would be the
>>>same as saying you are a nazi.
>>
>>I've never said that, in fact I'm on record as having said the
>>opposite about the US Republican Party (I can give you a reference if
>>you're interested, and I'm not sure you'd be).
>>
>
> Argghh did you read what I wrote?
>
I agreed with what you wrote, just not the pragmatic implications of the
comment ("Nazi" is not a favorite term of oppobrium of mine, it's often
sprung on leftists of a certain "derivation" in the US).
>
> And now we have you avoiding the point yet again. You said the burden of
> proof is different, I said that it is not. The fact is that it isn't
> different, the only difference between implication and flat out statement is
> that you must additionally prove that reasonable people would make the
> 'connection'. You have to essentially prove two things, not have the burdens
> of proof shifted.
>
That's the different burden of proof I was speaking of, as it's easier
to apply the "reasonable-person" standard to flat-out comments than it
is to apply it to implicatures. You're quite correct it applies to
both, though.
>>>>I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No you are not.
>>
>>I can't be responsible for it, which is the primary concern both in
>>criminal and civil law.
>>
>
> You aren't responsible for something you did?
>
I can't be responsible for things I didn't do.
>>>>>>not yet entirely settled, and your position is more similar to
>>>>>>partisans of the Confederacy (which was theoretically focused on
>>>>>>self-government, including individual freedom from government
>>>>>>incursion).
>>>>>
>>>>>Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
>>>>
>>>>No, these people do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The major difference between the two was slavery, as far as everything
>
> else
>
>>>went they were virtually identical.
>>
>>That's true enough in terms of their governments (although many
>>Southerners won't acknowledge that), but the Confederacy had a
>>different idea of what a good government would be.
>>
>
> A very minor difference in the idea.
>
I am quite an extreme Northerner in most everything cultural and
political; I have no sympathy for the Confederacy (less than you
effectively do, as some of your views are in line with theirs). I just
want to be factually accurate and even-handed.
>>>>>>>>>Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No but then again he did not spell words that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
>>>>
>>>>No answer here.
>>>
>>>It is irrelevant, he did not spell words as you do, they had several
>>>characters that are no longer in use by any dialect of english and as
>
> such
>
>>>he did not spell words the way you do.
>>
>>He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
>>
>
> He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the other ones
> that were replaced.
>
As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in Middle
English. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
"originary" view of the English people.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> >
> > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> >
> >>>"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> >>>news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> >>>
> >>>>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I am trying to cut my losses.
> >>>
> >>>Well that would mean you would have to give up communism.
> >>
> >>Why is that?
> >
> > Because you can not defend it's principles.
> >
> Now we come to the payoff. Throughout this (monthlong) discussion, it's
> rather clearly been the case that it is much more important for you to
> take away a negative impression of me as a person from this thread than
> the converse.
Not at all, I have conversed, you simply ignore it.
> This statement really makes any construal of any of my
> actions, past, present and future under that description "factually
> inaccurate", no matter who the reader is nor what the circumstances are:
> "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to say.
> It's really pretty sinister.
>
What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for a
change.
> >>What's going to happen if I don't?
> >
> > Well nothing really, other than the fact you wold be denying reason and
> > reality by clining to it.
>
> If you were to effectively propagate such an image of me and "militate"
> against other images, that'd be harm enough, believe you me.
>
Seeing you are actually doing what I claim, you have nothing.
> >
> >>Why can't I cut losses now?
> >>
> > What losses?
> >
> Time and energy spent talking to you.
>
It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
> >>>When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
> >>
> >>Many people think so, with some reason -- not because they know all
> >>the facts, that's unreasonable.
> >>
> > Again you try to forcus on the words and ignore the meaning.
> >
> That's funny for me.
>
Why it is all you have done so far.
> >>>Who is a beggar?
> >>
> >>Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
> >
> > Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you want
to
> > decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can the
> > taxation I suffer not be theft?
> >
> That's a libelous comment;
No it is not.
> I don't want what you earn, I want what *I* earn,
So do I and taxes prevent me from having it.
> and seeing as how you're tens of thousands of miles away I don't
> expect these considerations to ever effectively clash. Except if you
> want to call me a thief without any evidence,
You support taxation, that makes you a thief.
> which you rather clearly
> do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not; no more
> of that at all. I mean it.
>
You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
> >>Not like those are defamatory statements or anything.
> >>
> > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it
and
> > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
disobey,
> > so now tell me how that is not theft?
> >
> And here's the vague construal that makes me out to be just the
> more-or-less-conscious representative of a vast thieving group. I wish
> I knew about them, too. In terms of "threats and punishment" for
> disobeying the law, it seems like you're unhappy about having to live in
> civil society, doesn't seem to have much to do with this newsgroup.
>
A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in short it
would not tax.
Now answer the question.
How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it and
people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I disobey,
so now tell me how that is not theft?
> >>>>Do you hire people to write for you?
> >>>
> >>>No I don't need to, but you should.
> >>
> >>That's not traditionally the response I've gotten (from anyone who's
> >>ever known me, really, but including professional editors I've done
> >>paid work for).
> >>
> > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps?
A
> > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a
ten
> > year old?
> >
> Well, they cut out the part about Derrida once, so I'm going to be a
> little unkind and venture to say: right on the upper edge of your
> comprehension abilities.
If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am wrong?
Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
> No, it was not political writing; and my jobs
> since (I haven't written for print for many years, but I can't afford to
> stand on principles) have included writing technical reports and such as
> a big part of my duties. So you're really hitting pretty close to home
> in the name of "anti-communism" and I'm telling you there's NO CALL; a
> responsible person would be curbing their dogma by now.
>
I refer you to what I wrote
And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps? A
socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a ten
year old?
Read it again and you will see why your response was irrelevant.
> >>>Care or not, I am still right.
> >>
> >>I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
> >>
> > Anything I would comment on anyway.
> >
> That's a massively unreasonable standpoint,
How so?
>and again, a little sinister. Collateral beliefs influence things I say,
often to
> disturbing degrees: sometimes I have to tell myself I'm *not* just
> writing about things I heard in rock songs, for example, because after a
> fashion I believe a lot of views expressed in popular culture. But even
> if you're not that "mainstream", it's just a technical matter that
> saying you know enough about someone to provide a completely accurate
> picture of them for public purposes tells people more about your
> motivation than your knowledge-base; you couldn't. Furthermore, I
> wouldn't hire you to represent me and what you don't know CAN HURT YOU
> when you practice to "defeat" unreasonably positive views of another
> person in the minds of other people. You shouldn't have to ask a lawyer
> about that, but you can.
>
Again that is irrelevant. I said that I would be right about any topic I
would comment on with you. This does not mean anything that you have
written, it does mean that I would not comment if I did not already know I
was right.
> >>> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
> >>
> >>Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
> >>
> > It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
> >
> Well, that's pretty close to my own view but the point is saying that
> requires that you give up responsibility for knowing every relevant fact
> of the matter: after all, you could be wrong, even about seemingly
> unshakeable certainties. In other words, you're not being
> intellectually responsible here.
>
Completely irrelevant. You are either correct or you are not, the percentage
of the facts you know is irrelevant in that respect.
> >>>Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
> >>
> >>Because you're not saying interesting things and you're not saying
> >>them repeatedly, your discourse seems to be wish-fulfillment rather
> >>than teasing out aspects of some state of affairs. That can still
> >>kick other people in the ass, though; don't worry.
> >>
> > Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then
give
> > examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
> >
> That's one right there; you've expressed valuations of those "facts" as
well.
>
They are facts, if they were not you would have been able to tell me very
concisely why they were not facts.
> >>>I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
> >>>advocating the use of force against me.
> >>
> >>That wouldn't be me (unless you're engaged in dangerous illegal
> >>conduct). Why are we still talking, really?
> >
> > You advocate taxes, vicimless crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully
> > interact with others; this means you are advocating the use of force
against
> > me.
> >
> I don't like this at all. I am not advocating the use of force against
> you,
Yes you are.
>and do not license the construal of "advocating taxes, victimless
> crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully interact with others" as
> doing so because that would give you or someone like you carte blanche
> in your mind to do whatever the hell you wanted to this "tyrant", who
> could be anyone out of the vast majority of residents of the United
> States (and perhaps New Zealand). Pretty jivey, *pretty dangerous*; I
> think you remind me of a real American shakedown artist I know more than
> Neil Finn.
>
And here we have you avoiding the point again.
You support taxes.
You support victimless crimes
You support controls upon how I voluntarily interact with others.
The conclusion is that you can simply change your mind and leave me alone by
voting libertarian, voting for anyone else means you are assisting the
government to force the three points above onto me.
Stuart Hawkins
> Stuart Hawkins wrote:
>
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> >
> >>The point is, you don't know all what I'm thinking and consequently
> >>you don't know all what I'm saying, or not saying if I don't respond
> >>to one of your many self-congratulations.
> >>
> > The statement and question I asked was not self congratulatory, as such
your
> > above statement is irrelevant to the point.
> >
> A lot of what you say is,
Irrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at particular
statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
> such as speculating about my motives for writing a certain way.
I never did that, i did say that you intentional misinterprested my meaning.
If you did it accidentially then you would have to be very stupid indeed.
> For all you know, my emails could be modified by
> other hands prior to your reading them. (Isn't that right?)
Unlikely.
> Ordinarily
> that's not too important, but you've really set yourself up to have to
> know a lot more about me than is effectively possible.
>
No i ahve not.
> >>>>>Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things
that
> >>>>>matter.
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
> >>>>
> >>>More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
> >>>possible?
> >>
> >>They're more important than you, and you're not ever correcting
> >>yourself (the reliable sign that you care about the facts).
> >>
> > I will correct myself when it is shown that I am wrong, as this has not
occured in our threads you will not have seen it.
> > Your above statement is akin to an alien landing blind in the middle of
the saharrah desert and boldly claiming the entire
> > planet is the same.
> >
> That's pretty funny, but I don't think like that; I correct myself when
> I have been shown (sometimes just by looking at something I've written)
> to be perhaps not knowledgeable enough about the matter at hand.
If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will not.
> Compare with you, who have made no important errors in this thread.
> Perhaps that's why I'm finding this so tiresome.
>
Perhaps.
> >>>>Lots of people don't leave estates.
> >>>
> >>>Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must
> > be correct.
> >>
> >>You're trying to vitiate the point, which is that it's a move that
> >>would only help some people
> >
> > Freedom helps everyoner
> >
> That's a pretty vague statement; infrastructure helps everyone in a much
> more definite way (that's why we're here - the Internet wasn't invented
> by private corporations, rather ARPA).
And?
> But infrastructure requires taxes.
>
Sell it off and it won't.
> >>(and hurt the tax base, which is important
> >>for everyone).
> >
> > No it is not, the taxes have a deadweight loss and are stolen from the
> > people that earnt them. No act of force can be beneficial.
> >
> See above. If you don't like "infrastructure", get off the Internet.
I directly pay for it so your argument is nonsence.
> >>Honestly, it'll work: a number of extremely wealthy
> >>American businessmen are opposed to the repeal of estate taxes, but
> >>even they hardly get a hearing today.
> >>
> > So you have a big crowd howling for what they didn't earn, so what?
> > The people who have it who either earnt it or were given it freely are
the
> > only ones with any right to it.
> > The mistake you make is assuming the government has the right to tax to
> > start with.
> >
> *I* don't have a big crowd; there's no equivalent to your chuckle crew
> (still unexplained) looking over my shoulder as I write this.
>
The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
> >>>No it is not.
> >>
> >>You and I are not the judges of that.
> >>
> > Reason is and reason clearly shows that it is a restriction applied to
> > everyone, a restriction that has been removed. This means that freedom
has
> > increased.
> >
> I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
Then what makes that any different to anything else I say?
The estate tax is forced onto people, by removing it we remove force and
without force we have freedom.
> >>>>>with what is theirs as they see fit.
> >>>>
> >>>>I've never intentionally bothered a rich person in their free time;
> >>>
> >>>But you argue for what they earn.
> >>
> >>What is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > You want their earnings, you want them to be taxed.
> >
> Me and what army?
Those that vote for it.
> The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> taxation, that's not a communist thing.
>
Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be left
untaxed.
> >>Are we not supposed to talk about the
> >>activities of businesses anymore?
> >>
> > Talk all you want but so long as they do not initiate the use of force,
you
> > nor the government has no right to interfere.
>
> That's pretty funny, because you can't talk all you want (non-disclosure
> agreements) and almost anything an aggrieved worker might do could be
> construed as "initiating force" due to arguments like yours from
> corporate lackeys.
>
Well that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
> >>>>I wish I could say the same of them,
> >>>
> >>>How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
> >>
> >>As someone else once said the place it is my home, so where am I gonna
> >>go?
> >>
> > They came into your home and made you listen to them. They only way they
> > could make you listen is if they broke into your house and put a gun to
your
> > head. I can tell you right now they didn't use force on you and you
didn't
> > have to listen.
> >
> They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around; but
> those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever and that
they did not initate force against you.
> They don't really
> indicate the absence of coercion, as you are very quick to proclaim
> (you're telling yourself and other "free men" that).
>
What coercion did they use?
> >>>What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked
> > away If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can
always
> > say no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or
be
> >>>punnished.
> >>
> >>I've done that too; "Not a wise move". And to add another libertarian
> >>point, the latter part about the government isn't quite true; if a US
> >>government agent asked/ordered you to do something illegal, you could
> >>get in trouble for doing it *or* not doing it.
> >>
> > An irrelevant point, the abuse of power you suggest is far more liekly
in
> > your system than mine and does not invalidate my statement in any way
shape
> > or form. Unless the agent happens to be the government, which would be
> > pardoxical to say the least.
> >
> I don't have a system, I'm not a Soviet-bloc supporter. (Is that
> surprising? It should be, but there are some things which need saying
> rather than reasonable assuming.)
>
Do you support democracy?
That is a system.
> >>>
> >>>Facts and reason are what I use.
> >>
> >>That's good, at least you've added a teeny bit of distance so other
> >>people can use them too.
> >>
> > Only if they are saying exactly what I am saying.
> >
> Oh my.
>
If i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and logic will
say exactly what I do.
> >>>
> >>>And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he
resorts
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>insuts.
> >>
> >>The substantial arguments I make are here and elsewhere pertaining to
> >>bigger issues.
> >
> > Where? did you post them in invisible text?
> >
> Maybe it's invisible to you, I don't know.
>
Well I haven't seen them.
> >>You don't have substantial arguments about personal
> >>characteristics, that's something of a smokescreen which you are
> >>heavily employing.
> >>
> > Personal characterisitcs?
> >
> "So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
> fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
> particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
>
I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
> >>Well, I'm glad you feel that way. Usually I feel bad when I think
> >>people are presenting poor arguments.
> >>
> > Well don't feel too bad about how poor your argument is.
> >
> I see I haven't stopped beating my wife yet, but I guess you're being
> pretty nice about it.
>
You really should stop beating her.
> >>>In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
> >>>seriously; which of course you already know.
> >>
> >>They take precedent very seriously; they make it.
> >
> > They follow what other judges said, that is what following precident
means.
> >
> It's never spelled "precident", Commonwealth or no, and the following
> requires judgment-calls you and I aren't entitled to make.
>
No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't higher
courts over rule the verdict.
> >>It's what Anthony Giddens calls a "double hermeneutic", where
contemporary
> >
> > juridicial
> >
> >>attitudes and historical ones thread together in no very predictable
way.
> >>
> > That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he must
be
> > incorrect.
> >
> They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
>
Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is considered to
be such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review, to
scrutiny and re-evaluation?
You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
> >>>>Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
> >>>>Being funny, because this is just
> >>>>unreasonable.
> >>>>
> >
> >>>find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded
to
> >>>back up your claims.
> >>
> >>Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
> >>speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
> >>some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
> >>prior to refrigeration.
> >
> > And such information is readily given.
> >
> "Just a couple maggots, I swear. They'll give it a real good flavor."
> Do you think most sellers would say something like that?
>
Lawsuit, you lose.
Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called arguments and
facts.
> >>Beyond that, there have always been ways to
> >>rip people off a little bit in terms of what they're getting (a
> >>lower-quality product inmixed with what they think they are buying).
> >>This didn't used to be controversial.
> >>
> > But now that it can be proved not even the unscrupulous attempt it as
the
> > legal cases would be crippling
> >
> That's not true at all,
yes it is.
> as the legal case can be crippling, are not
> necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
> corporations.
>
That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are the
cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
> >>>>>Well I stated a ft in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
> >>>
> >>> audience),
> >>>
> >>>>>that must mean I simply stated a fact.
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
> >>>>
> >>>I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I
> > statethings simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I
insulted
> > you.
> >
> >>You're insulting me all over these posts,
> >
> > Where? come one, where do i insult you?
> > I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
> >
> This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
>
Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing you
claimed I did.
> >>and you're starting to make
> >>demands I doubt I'll "be able to meet".
> >
> > Like backing up your claims?
> >
> Your evidentiary standard is whether you agree with something.
>
My evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with you.
> >>Quit jiving (I doubt you'll
> >>be able to meet that demand, though).
> >>
> > I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
> >
> It is an art you can cultivate, this is true; but you can just do it, too.
>
I don't want to.
> >>>>>>Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
> >>>>
> >>>>Exactly so.
> >>>>
> >>>Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed
etc
> > to
> >
> >>>the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
> >>>statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum
is
> >>>wrong.
> >>
> >>That's a "citizen's arrest".
> >>
> > That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens
arrest
> > but they are a vigilante.
> >
> No; they're following the letter of the law. You're opening a door to
> lynch mobs.
>
No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am right and
you are wrong.
> >>>Obviously you agree?
> >>
> >>What if that's not what they really did?
> >
> > That wasn't the sceanrio I asked you about, but i shall answer anyway.
> >
> >>Why do you need to use a .50
> >>caliber gun?
> >
> > To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to harm
you
> > with the knife.
> >
> Well, we've established you're not a cop, since a fatality is never the
> desired outcome of a confrontation with a "perp".
>
It is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
> >> (Maybe there's a good reason, I've never been into guns;
> >>I just know that's ordinarily for putting big holes in big game).
> >>
> > It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
> >
> I haven't seen those movies.
>
well then have you seen Snatch?
Bullet tooth Tony has one.
> >>>>>Lets not and say we didn't.
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
> >>>>Okay? Okay?
> >>>>
> >>>Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is
that
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>are totally wrong and I am totally right.
> >>
> >>What are you gonna do with that?
> >
> > Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you are so
> > irrational that you refuse to accept that.
> >
> I'm not into sitting, and I'm not self-satisfied. I'll leave
> irrationality calls to a "third party".
>
Well I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
> >>>>What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> >>>>
> >>>When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> >>>When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle?
> > Many
> >>>times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I
> >
> > have
> >
> >>>refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>look it up."
> >>
> >>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
> >>mind.
> >>
> > Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
> >
> The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of force.
> it's part of
> life, like usury (which is a kind of economic force,
No it is not, the people involved agreed to it witout coersion of any form.
> and I mean this in
> a pretty non-judgmental way).
>
Obviously you did mean it in a judgemental way as you ignored the fact it is
entirely voluntary.
> >>>Not at all, when compared to the english rules for sentence structure
we
> >
> > see
> >
> >>>that many of your sentences violate these rules.
> >>
> >>Could you point me to the relevant *Fowler's* section?
> >>
> > I stated this particular part of our thread refering to one such
instance.
> >
> I want to hear it from the source.
>
Look back and find it yourself, it should be easy enough.
> >>>>>It is important to reality, to say otherwise is to deny reality.
> >>>>
> >>>>Reality is that you are right and I am wrong?
> >>>
> >>>Reality is that is we disagree only one of us may be correct, the other
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>by definition wrong.
> >>
> >>I suspect this is the reality of you ruling.
> >>
> > No it is just plain reality, if people do not agree only one person may
be
> > correct in this sort of thing.
> >
> I think most people wouldn't agree with that.
>
Who cares? Fact is it is logical and reasonable that I am correct about
this. If it is 12 o'clock in NZ and one NZ person says it is night in NZ and
the other NZ person says it is day in NZ then only one is right, anyone who
disagees with that is very very stupid.
> >>>Yes most are sheep.
> >>
> >>*I* like sheep (not usually like that).
> >>
> > Yes you call them usefull idiots.
> >
> No, you can't.
>
Forget it, you obviously have no idea of what I am referring o.
> >>>date, but then as before you already knew that.
> >>
> >>As I said, I've never been on the dole and at present I'm not really
> >>leeching off other people's money; quite the opposite, to my mind.
> >>You're trying to obscure that.
> >>
> > Not at all. You argue for using other people's money to fund what you
> > believe is worthwhile, you argue for taxes. That is the extent of my
> > comments on you stealing.
> >
> Taxes are stealing?
Yes.
> There are a lot of thieves, including people that "steal from themselves"
(like me).
>
How can you steal from yourself?
> >>>Then how come you haven't been able to give any answering remaks to my
> >>>arguments?
> >>
> >>Because you always award yourself the prize.
> >>
> > I award myself the prize because you do not even attempt to compete.
> >
> Well, enjoy it.
>
Hey why not, if the other runners lie down you have still won.
> >>>>>does that tell us?
> >>>>
> >>>>I guess I've living in your head all this time, then. My bad.
> >>>>
> >>>Again with the irrelevancies and nonsence.
> >>
> >>What you think is less relevant than you know.
> >>
> > How so? How is wanting people to leave me alone not relevant?
> >
> I'd like you to leave me and the rest of the people here on this
> newsgroup alone right now,
I am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond to them.
> and your arguments as to why you can't do
> this in good conscience are truly lame.
>
read above.
> >>I'm not pretending I'm in full control of the law, such that I can
> >>fully understand when others are justified in acting in self-defense.
> >>
> >
> > Reason decides if an action is justified for self-defence.
> >
> I.e., you decide. Cute.
>
No reason decides, the fact I use reason to make my mindf up on issues just
means that i am always right.
> >>>>>Neither do I, i get mine from university. The reference to Seinfeld
> >
> > is a
> >
> >>>>>popular culture reference that reinforces my point and explains it
> >
> > to
> >
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>masses.
> >>>>
> >>>>Did you study law?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, and the first thing they explained was that it is not your
> >>>responsibility to prevent perils or help others if you did not cause
the
> >>>peril/problem etc.
> >>
> >>I don't believe this, or at least you didn't make it to tort law.
> >>
> > 1. Seeing as tort law is one of the very first things i learnt in law, i
> > fail to see how that is possible
>
> Do you not have joint and several liability in NZ?
Yes
> You can be
> (economically/legally) responsible for things people associated with you
> do, even if you didn't know about the action and wouldn't have approved.
> It's to keep "double-book accounting" out of civil law, and it's a
> reality, especially for people not operating within limited-liability
> corporations.
>
Totally irrelevant. that is to with companies, emplyees etc doing things
that are bad. It has nothing to do with helping people in peril not caused
by me or those associated with the company i am the director etc of. It has
nothing to do with helping a starving man nor alerting a person to a falling
boulder.
But I think you said it best in this very post I now reply to when you said
the following
"I can't be responsible for things I didn't do."
You see, even you agree with me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Feeling stupid? You should be.
> >>>Yes it is. If I were to say that a germany political party which came
to
> >>>power in the 40's had the same principles as you, then that would be
the
> >>>same as saying you are a nazi.
> >>
> >>I've never said that, in fact I'm on record as having said the
> >>opposite about the US Republican Party (I can give you a reference if
> >>you're interested, and I'm not sure you'd be).
> >>
> > Argghh did you read what I wrote?
> >
> I agreed with what you wrote, just not the pragmatic implications of the
> comment ("Nazi" is not a favorite term of oppobrium of mine, it's often
> sprung on leftists of a certain "derivation" in the US).
>
It can be 'sprung' on anyone who acts in a similar manner.
> >
> > And now we have you avoiding the point yet again. You said the burden of
> > proof is different, I said that it is not. The fact is that it isn't
> > different, the only difference between implication and flat out
statement is
> > that you must additionally prove that reasonable people would make the
> > 'connection'. You have to essentially prove two things, not have the
burdens
> > of proof shifted.
> >
> That's the different burden of proof I was speaking of,
No that is not the burden of proof. It is what must be proved given the
burden of proof.
> as it's easier
> to apply the "reasonable-person" standard to flat-out comments than it
> is to apply it to implicatures. You're quite correct it applies to
> both, though.
>
Are you simple? The burden of proof is the same, what you are proving is
different.
> >>>>I'm off the hook for something I didn't do, I swear.
> >>>>
> >>>No you are not.
> >>
> >>I can't be responsible for it, which is the primary concern both in
> >>criminal and civil law.
> >>
> > You aren't responsible for something you did?
> >
> I can't be responsible for things I didn't do.
THANK YOU, now apply that to the boulder scenario and the starving man.
> >>>>>Then what of slavery? Did you convenienty forget that huh?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, these people do.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>The major difference between the two was slavery, as far as everything
> >
> > else
> >
> >>>went they were virtually identical.
> >>
> >>That's true enough in terms of their governments (although many
> >>Southerners won't acknowledge that), but the Confederacy had a
> >>different idea of what a good government would be.
> >>
> > A very minor difference in the idea.
> >
> I am quite an extreme Northerner in most everything cultural and
> political; I have no sympathy for the Confederacy (less than you
> effectively do, as some of your views are in line with theirs). I just
> want to be factually accurate and even-handed.
>
Then admitt you are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>Whatever, it's just plain wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Do you think Shakespeare is wrong?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No but then again he did not spell words that way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes he did. You're reading modernized texts.
> >>>>
> >>>>No answer here.
> >>>
> >>>It is irrelevant, he did not spell words as you do, they had several
> >>>characters that are no longer in use by any dialect of english and as
> >
> > such
> >
> >>>he did not spell words the way you do.
> >>
> >>He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
> >>
> > He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the other
ones
> > that were replaced.
> >
> As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in Middle
> English. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
> might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
> "originary" view of the English people.
>
Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > >
> > >>>"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > >>>news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >>>
> > >>> news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > >>>
> > >>>>>And now only one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I am trying to cut my losses.
> > >>>
> > >>>Well that would mean you would have to give up communism.
> > >>
> > >>Why is that?
> > >
> > > Because you can not defend it's principles.
> > >
> > Now we come to the payoff. Throughout this (monthlong) discussion, it's
> > rather clearly been the case that it is much more important for you to
> > take away a negative impression of me as a person from this thread than
> > the converse.
>
> Not at all, I have conversed, you simply ignore it.
This is more effort than I would ordinarily expend on such a
conversation, and yet I am indeed not being credited for it.
> > This statement really makes any construal of any of my
> > actions, past, present and future under that description "factually
> > inaccurate", no matter who the reader is nor what the circumstances are:
> > "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to say.
> > It's really pretty sinister.
> >
> What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for a
> change.
That's relevant to me. You become more imperious by the day.
> > >>What's going to happen if I don't?
> > >
> > > Well nothing really, other than the fact you wold be denying reason and
> > > reality by clining to it.
> >
> > If you were to effectively propagate such an image of me and "militate"
> > against other images, that'd be harm enough, believe you me.
> >
> Seeing you are actually doing what I claim, you have nothing.
> > >
> > >>Why can't I cut losses now?
> > >>
> > > What losses?
> > >
> > Time and energy spent talking to you.
> >
> It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
I'm sorry, they didn't let me in on "the point" so I tend to spend
time making my own.
> > >>>When all the facts agree with you you must be winning.
> > >>
> > >>Many people think so, with some reason -- not because they know all
> > >>the facts, that's unreasonable.
> > >>
> > > Again you try to forcus on the words and ignore the meaning.
> > >
> > That's funny for me.
> >
> Why it is all you have done so far.
>
> > >>>Who is a beggar?
> > >>
> > >>Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
> > >
> > > Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you want
> to
> > > decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can the
> > > taxation I suffer not be theft?
> > >
> > That's a libelous comment;
>
> No it is not.
Yes it is. I'm not a thief, and saying so could negatively affect my
employability. I haven't called you a highwayman, although at times
I've been tempted to suggest it, for that reason.
> > I don't want what you earn, I want what *I* earn,
>
> So do I and taxes prevent me from having it.
>
> > and seeing as how you're tens of thousands of miles away I don't
> > expect these considerations to ever effectively clash. Except if you
> > want to call me a thief without any evidence,
>
> You support taxation, that makes you a thief.
>
> > which you rather clearly
> > do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not; no more
> > of that at all. I mean it.
> >
> You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
Wow, you do know me pretty well (I usually let comments like that
slide).
> > >>Not like those are defamatory statements or anything.
> > >>
> > > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it
> and
> > > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
> disobey,
> > > so now tell me how that is not theft?
> > >
> > And here's the vague construal that makes me out to be just the
> > more-or-less-conscious representative of a vast thieving group. I wish
> > I knew about them, too. In terms of "threats and punishment" for
> > disobeying the law, it seems like you're unhappy about having to live in
> > civil society, doesn't seem to have much to do with this newsgroup.
> >
> A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in short it
> would not tax.
> Now answer the question.
> How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it and
> people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I disobey,
> so now tell me how that is not theft?
Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's the
government; and in both our countries the government is democratic.
Do you have a problem with democracy? I'd say so, but I'm not you so
I won't put words in your mouth.
> > >>>>Do you hire people to write for you?
> > >>>
> > >>>No I don't need to, but you should.
> > >>
> > >>That's not traditionally the response I've gotten (from anyone who's
> > >>ever known me, really, but including professional editors I've done
> > >>paid work for).
> > >>
> > > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps?
> A
> > > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a
> ten
> > > year old?
> > >
> > Well, they cut out the part about Derrida once, so I'm going to be a
> > little unkind and venture to say: right on the upper edge of your
> > comprehension abilities.
>
> If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am wrong?
> Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
They're a little "roundabout", and I think people will know what I
mean.
> > No, it was not political writing; and my jobs
> > since (I haven't written for print for many years, but I can't afford to
> > stand on principles) have included writing technical reports and such as
> > a big part of my duties. So you're really hitting pretty close to home
> > in the name of "anti-communism" and I'm telling you there's NO CALL; a
> > responsible person would be curbing their dogma by now.
> >
> I refer you to what I wrote
> And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps? A
> socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a ten
> year old?
> Read it again and you will see why your response was irrelevant.
Indeed I do. The magazines were nonpolitical, if not too good: they
wouldn't have hired you. So you're attempting to elide the fact that
someone is qualified for a job you probably wouldn't be good at. Not
too libertarian.
> > >>>Care or not, I am still right.
> > >>
> > >>I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
> > >>
> > > Anything I would comment on anyway.
> > >
> > That's a massively unreasonable standpoint,
>
> How so?
You don't know me, and you don't seem to interpret anything I say
charitably enough to win a public argument, yet you seem not to feel
that either the fact or the probability militates against you
pronouncing upon me.
> >and again, a little sinister. Collateral beliefs influence things I say,
> often to
> > disturbing degrees: sometimes I have to tell myself I'm *not* just
> > writing about things I heard in rock songs, for example, because after a
> > fashion I believe a lot of views expressed in popular culture. But even
> > if you're not that "mainstream", it's just a technical matter that
> > saying you know enough about someone to provide a completely accurate
> > picture of them for public purposes tells people more about your
> > motivation than your knowledge-base; you couldn't. Furthermore, I
> > wouldn't hire you to represent me and what you don't know CAN HURT YOU
> > when you practice to "defeat" unreasonably positive views of another
> > person in the minds of other people. You shouldn't have to ask a lawyer
> > about that, but you can.
> >
> Again that is irrelevant. I said that I would be right about any topic I
> would comment on with you. This does not mean anything that you have
> written, it does mean that I would not comment if I did not already know I
> was right.
Let me make it simple: you wouldn't be, and the additional explanation
is still imperious (you don't know much about science if you only
speak when you know it all, although I was trying to let you have that
last word).
> > >>> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
> > >>
> > >>Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
> > >>
> > > It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
> > >
> > Well, that's pretty close to my own view but the point is saying that
> > requires that you give up responsibility for knowing every relevant fact
> > of the matter: after all, you could be wrong, even about seemingly
> > unshakeable certainties. In other words, you're not being
> > intellectually responsible here.
> >
> Completely irrelevant. You are either correct or you are not, the percentage
> of the facts you know is irrelevant in that respect.
Intellectual responsibility is irrelevant to discussion of political
issues? What line of work are you in, again?
> > >>>Because i have said something contrary to your opinion? Interesting.
> > >>
> > >>Because you're not saying interesting things and you're not saying
> > >>them repeatedly, your discourse seems to be wish-fulfillment rather
> > >>than teasing out aspects of some state of affairs. That can still
> > >>kick other people in the ass, though; don't worry.
> > >>
> > > Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then
> give
> > > examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
> > >
> > That's one right there; you've expressed valuations of those "facts" as
> well.
> >
> They are facts, if they were not you would have been able to tell me very
> concisely why they were not facts.
I started to talk about something different and more interesting.
Sorry.
> > >>>I am totally unconcerned with you, I am concerned with people using and
> > >>>advocating the use of force against me.
> > >>
> > >>That wouldn't be me (unless you're engaged in dangerous illegal
> > >>conduct). Why are we still talking, really?
> > >
> > > You advocate taxes, vicimless crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully
> > > interact with others; this means you are advocating the use of force
> against
> > > me.
> > >
> > I don't like this at all. I am not advocating the use of force against
> > you,
>
> Yes you are.
No, I'm not. You are not licensed to use force against me on your
say-so (the rather obvious eventual upshot of such talk).
> >and do not license the construal of "advocating taxes, victimless
> > crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully interact with others" as
> > doing so because that would give you or someone like you carte blanche
> > in your mind to do whatever the hell you wanted to this "tyrant", who
> > could be anyone out of the vast majority of residents of the United
> > States (and perhaps New Zealand). Pretty jivey, *pretty dangerous*; I
> > think you remind me of a real American shakedown artist I know more than
> > Neil Finn.
> >
> And here we have you avoiding the point again.
> You support taxes.
> You support victimless crimes
> You support controls upon how I voluntarily interact with others.
> The conclusion is that you can simply change your mind and leave me alone by
> voting libertarian, voting for anyone else means you are assisting the
> government to force the three points above onto me.
I'm sorry, I'm not an anarchist.
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:qr6wb.10644$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >
>
> > >>The point is, you don't know all what I'm thinking and consequently
> > >>you don't know all what I'm saying, or not saying if I don't respond
> > >>to one of your many self-congratulations.
> > >>
> > > The statement and question I asked was not self congratulatory, as such
> your
> > > above statement is irrelevant to the point.
> > >
> > A lot of what you say is,
>
> Irrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at particular
> statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
>
> > such as speculating about my motives for writing a certain way.
>
> I never did that, i did say that you intentional misinterprested my meaning.
> If you did it accidentially then you would have to be very stupid indeed.
>
> > For all you know, my emails could be modified by
> > other hands prior to your reading them. (Isn't that right?)
>
> Unlikely.
No, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
> > Ordinarily
> > that's not too important, but you've really set yourself up to have to
> > know a lot more about me than is effectively possible.
> >
> No i ahve not.
Yes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
"propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
"tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
views.
> > >>>>>Other people's thoughts are irrelevant, facts are the only things
> that
> > >>>>>matter.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Let's not get started on facts. They're more important than you know.
> > >>>>
> > >>>More important than the only things that matter? How on earth is that
> > >>>possible?
> > >>
> > >>They're more important than you, and you're not ever correcting
> > >>yourself (the reliable sign that you care about the facts).
> > >>
> > > I will correct myself when it is shown that I am wrong, as this has not
> occured in our threads you will not have seen it.
> > > Your above statement is akin to an alien landing blind in the middle of
> the saharrah desert and boldly claiming the entire
> > > planet is the same.
> > >
> > That's pretty funny, but I don't think like that; I correct myself when
> > I have been shown (sometimes just by looking at something I've written)
> > to be perhaps not knowledgeable enough about the matter at hand.
>
> If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will not.
I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
> > Compare with you, who have made no important errors in this thread.
> > Perhaps that's why I'm finding this so tiresome.
> >
> Perhaps.
>
> > >>>>Lots of people don't leave estates.
> > >>>
> > >>>Would they dbe bound by this forceful constraint? No? Well then I must
> be correct.
> > >>
> > >>You're trying to vitiate the point, which is that it's a move that
> > >>would only help some people
> > >
> > > Freedom helps everyoner
> > >
> > That's a pretty vague statement; infrastructure helps everyone in a much
> > more definite way (that's why we're here - the Internet wasn't invented
> > by private corporations, rather ARPA).
>
> And?
Infrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
> > But infrastructure requires taxes.
> >
> Sell it off and it won't.
That's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
for it with taxes.
> > >>(and hurt the tax base, which is important
> > >>for everyone).
> > >
> > > No it is not, the taxes have a deadweight loss and are stolen from the
> > > people that earnt them. No act of force can be beneficial.
> > >
> > See above. If you don't like "infrastructure", get off the Internet.
>
> I directly pay for it so your argument is nonsence.
You directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
be usable.
> > >>Honestly, it'll work: a number of extremely wealthy
> > >>American businessmen are opposed to the repeal of estate taxes, but
> > >>even they hardly get a hearing today.
> > >>
> > > So you have a big crowd howling for what they didn't earn, so what?
> > > The people who have it who either earnt it or were given it freely are
> the
> > > only ones with any right to it.
> > > The mistake you make is assuming the government has the right to tax to
> > > start with.
> > >
> > *I* don't have a big crowd; there's no equivalent to your chuckle crew
> > (still unexplained) looking over my shoulder as I write this.
> >
> The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
don't think too far beyond that.
> > >>>No it is not.
> > >>
> > >>You and I are not the judges of that.
> > >>
> > > Reason is and reason clearly shows that it is a restriction applied to
> > > everyone, a restriction that has been removed. This means that freedom
> has
> > > increased.
> > >
> > I don't understand what you're saying here.
> >
> > The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> > taxation, that's not a communist thing.
> >
> Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be left
> untaxed.
Sometimes it's important.
> > >>Are we not supposed to talk about the
> > >>activities of businesses anymore?
> > >>
> > > Talk all you want but so long as they do not initiate the use of force,
> you
> > > nor the government has no right to interfere.
> >
> > That's pretty funny, because you can't talk all you want (non-disclosure
> > agreements) and almost anything an aggrieved worker might do could be
> > construed as "initiating force" due to arguments like yours from
> > corporate lackeys.
> >
> Well that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
That's right, but it still doesn't have too much to do with freedom.
> > >>>>I wish I could say the same of them,
> > >>>
> > >>>How did they do so? What made you listen/stay etc?
> > >>
> > >>As someone else once said the place it is my home, so where am I gonna
> > >>go?
> > >>
> > > They came into your home and made you listen to them. They only way they
> > > could make you listen is if they broke into your house and put a gun to
> your
> > > head. I can tell you right now they didn't use force on you and you
> didn't
> > > have to listen.
> > >
> > They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around; but
> > those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
>
> Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever and that
> they did not initate force against you.
The hell you can, those are empirical statements; I could have an
executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
other kind of trip.
> > They don't really
> > indicate the absence of coercion, as you are very quick to proclaim
> > (you're telling yourself and other "free men" that).
> >
> What coercion did they use?
This is a slip on your part, as the "they" mentioned here does not
refer to some vague Army of Darkness which may or may not be coercive,
but fine distinctions (which are perfectly all right with me).
> > >>>What made you clap? Could you not have shouted "FUCK OFF!!!" and walked
> > > away If a rich man told you to do something you didn't like you can
> always
> > > say no, if the government tells you to do something you have to do it or
> be
> > >>>punnished.
> > >>
> > >>I've done that too; "Not a wise move". And to add another libertarian
> > >>point, the latter part about the government isn't quite true; if a US
> > >>government agent asked/ordered you to do something illegal, you could
> > >>get in trouble for doing it *or* not doing it.
> > >>
> > > An irrelevant point, the abuse of power you suggest is far more liekly
> in
> > > your system than mine and does not invalidate my statement in any way
> shape
> > > or form. Unless the agent happens to be the government, which would be
> > > pardoxical to say the least.
> > >
> > I don't have a system, I'm not a Soviet-bloc supporter. (Is that
> > surprising? It should be, but there are some things which need saying
> > rather than reasonable assuming.)
> >
> Do you support democracy?
> That is a system.
Oh, is that your idea of communism? Should I not vote Democratic at
the next election, lest I be accused of initiating force worthy of
self-defense?
> > >>>
> > >>>Facts and reason are what I use.
> > >>
> > >>That's good, at least you've added a teeny bit of distance so other
> > >>people can use them too.
> > >>
> > > Only if they are saying exactly what I am saying.
> > >
> > Oh my.
> >
> If i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and logic will
> say exactly what I do.
That's never true in practice (outside certain special cases, of
course), and I don't happen to believe it's true in theory.
> > >>>
> > >>>And here we have it, unable to give any substantial arguments he
> resorts
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >>>insuts.
> > >>
> > >>The substantial arguments I make are here and elsewhere pertaining to
> > >>bigger issues.
> > >
> > > Where? did you post them in invisible text?
> > >
> > Maybe it's invisible to you, I don't know.
> >
> Well I haven't seen them.
Well, too bad.
> > >>You don't have substantial arguments about personal
> > >>characteristics, that's something of a smokescreen which you are
> > >>heavily employing.
> > >>
> > > Personal characterisitcs?
> > >
> > "So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
> > fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
> > particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
> >
> I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
You make imperious pronouncements.
> > >>Well, I'm glad you feel that way. Usually I feel bad when I think
> > >>people are presenting poor arguments.
> > >>
> > > Well don't feel too bad about how poor your argument is.
> > >
> > I see I haven't stopped beating my wife yet, but I guess you're being
> > pretty nice about it.
> >
> You really should stop beating her.
>
> > >>>In the context I used the word it means that they take precident very
> > >>>seriously; which of course you already know.
> > >>
> > >>They take precedent very seriously; they make it.
> > >
> > > They follow what other judges said, that is what following precident
> means.
> > >
> > It's never spelled "precident", Commonwealth or no, and the following
> > requires judgment-calls you and I aren't entitled to make.
> >
> No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't higher
> courts over rule the verdict.
Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
went over your head :)
> > >>It's what Anthony Giddens calls a "double hermeneutic", where
> contemporary
> > >
> > > juridicial
> > >
> > >>attitudes and historical ones thread together in no very predictable
> way.
> > >>
> > > That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he must
> be
> > > incorrect.
> > >
> > They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
> >
> Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is considered to
> be such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review, to
> scrutiny and re-evaluation?
> You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
Don't waste my time, asshole; you're playing a lot faster and looser
here (though not with the facts, I swear I wasn't saying that). It's
just your creepolatrous tone which keeps me defusing your comments.
> > >>>>Oh, I don't know, The Trojan Horse.
> > >>>>Being funny, because this is just
> > >>>>unreasonable.
> > >>>>
>
> > >>>find examples, instead you claim it unreasonable that you be demanded
> to
> > >>>back up your claims.
> > >>
> > >>Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
> > >>speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
> > >>some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
> > >>prior to refrigeration.
> > >
> > > And such information is readily given.
> > >
> > "Just a couple maggots, I swear. They'll give it a real good flavor."
> > Do you think most sellers would say something like that?
> >
> Lawsuit, you lose.
> Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called arguments and
> facts.
You're a fool, what I say is true.
> > >>Beyond that, there have always been ways to
> > >>rip people off a little bit in terms of what they're getting (a
> > >>lower-quality product inmixed with what they think they are buying).
> > >>This didn't used to be controversial.
> > >>
> > > But now that it can be proved not even the unscrupulous attempt it as
> the
> > > legal cases would be crippling
> > >
> > That's not true at all,
>
> yes it is.
>
> > as the legal case can be crippling, are not
> > necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
> > corporations.
> >
> That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are the
> cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
There are civil-law actions against corporations. I swear.
> > >>>>>Well I stated a ft in a simple way (I do have to cater to my
> > >>>
> > >>> audience),
> > >>>
> > >>>>>that must mean I simply stated a fact.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Oh, and now I'm simple. I do like things simple, though.
> > >>>>
> > >>>I did not say you were simple, I said that my audience requires that I
> > > statethings simply. Now i demand an appology for your claim that I
> insulted
> > > you.
> > >
> > >>You're insulting me all over these posts,
> > >
> > > Where? come one, where do i insult you?
> > > I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
> > >
> > This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
> >
> Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing you
> claimed I did.
>
> > >>and you're starting to make
> > >>demands I doubt I'll "be able to meet".
> > >
> > > Like backing up your claims?
> > >
> > Your evidentiary standard is whether you agree with something.
> >
> My evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with you.
I like people to agree with me.
> > >>Quit jiving (I doubt you'll
> > >>be able to meet that demand, though).
> > >>
> > > I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
> > >
> > It is an art you can cultivate, this is true; but you can just do it, too.
> >
> I don't want to.
You can do it without wanting to, or even knowing that you're doing
it.
> > >>>>>>Vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Because they do not prove the guilt of the 'criminal'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Exactly so.
> > >>>>
> > >>>Well someone who catches wanted criminals and delivers them unharmed
> etc
> > > to
> > >
> > >>>the authorities would be praised as a good vigilante, therefore the
> > >>>statement that vigilantes would be frowned upon because they are scum
> is
> > >>>wrong.
> > >>
> > >>That's a "citizen's arrest".
> > >>
> > > That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens
> arrest
> > > but they are a vigilante.
> > >
> > No; they're following the letter of the law. You're opening a door to
> > lynch mobs.
> >
> No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am right and
> you are wrong.
It's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
> > >>>Obviously you agree?
> > >>
> > >>What if that's not what they really did?
> > >
> > > That wasn't the sceanrio I asked you about, but i shall answer anyway.
> > >
> > >>Why do you need to use a .50
> > >>caliber gun?
> > >
> > > To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to harm
> you
> > > with the knife.
> > >
> > Well, we've established you're not a cop, since a fatality is never the
> > desired outcome of a confrontation with a "perp".
> >
> It is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
What is this supposed to mean, other than that you got whupped with an
inconvenient fact (the kind I'm interested in).
> > >> (Maybe there's a good reason, I've never been into guns;
> > >>I just know that's ordinarily for putting big holes in big game).
> > >>
> > > It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
> > >
> > I haven't seen those movies.
> >
> well then have you seen Snatch?
> Bullet tooth Tony has one.
No, I didn't see that movie either; I know what a .50 caliber weapon
is like (elephant guns), but I'm not that interested in projectile
weaponry.
> > >>>>>Lets not and say we didn't.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Let's not do more rasslin' then; I'll go talk to someone interesting.
> > >>>>Okay? Okay?
> > >>>>
> > >>>Fine, I won't stop you. But of coruse the unavoidable conclusion is
> that
> > >
> > > you
> > >
> > >>>are totally wrong and I am totally right.
> > >>
> > >>What are you gonna do with that?
> > >
> > > Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you are so
> > > irrational that you refuse to accept that.
> > >
> > I'm not into sitting, and I'm not self-satisfied. I'll leave
> > irrationality calls to a "third party".
> >
> Well I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
People like to say this, but they don't like to go through with it (I
know, I'm always game for real). But you're far away from me, so
maybe that's a good excuse.
> > >>>>What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> > >>>>
> > >>>When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> > >>>When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force principle?
> Many
> > >>>times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they are, I
> > >
> > > have
> > >
> > >>>refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked you
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >>>look it up."
> > >>
> > >>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
> > >>mind.
> > >>
> > > Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
> > >
> > The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
>
> No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of force.
You have one yourself (self-defense).
> > >>>that many of your sentences violate these rules.
> > >>
> > >>Could you point me to the relevant *Fowler's* section?
> > >>
> > > I stated this particular part of our thread refering to one such
> instance.
> > >
> > I want to hear it from the source.
> >
> Look back and find it yourself, it should be easy enough.
I figure that'd be rather difficult, because Fowler's advice is pretty
nuanced (he tells you not to worry about using split infinitives, for
example).
> I am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond to them.
I will not do so following this post.
> > Do you not have joint and several liability in NZ?
>
> Yes
>
> > You can be
> > (economically/legally) responsible for things people associated with you
> > do, even if you didn't know about the action and wouldn't have approved.
> > It's to keep "double-book accounting" out of civil law, and it's a
> > reality, especially for people not operating within limited-liability
> > corporations.
> >
> Totally irrelevant. that is to with companies, emplyees etc doing things
> that are bad. It has nothing to do with helping people in peril not caused
> by me or those associated with the company i am the director etc of. It has
> nothing to do with helping a starving man nor alerting a person to a falling
> boulder.
> But I think you said it best in this very post I now reply to when you said
> the following
> "I can't be responsible for things I didn't do."
> You see, even you agree with me.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
> Feeling stupid? You should be.
Joint and several liability applies to individuals as well, in fact
even more so. Am I feeling stupid about this? Not at all.
> > >>He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
> > >>
> > > He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the other
> ones
> > > that were replaced.
> > >
> > As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in Middle
> > English. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
> > might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
> > "originary" view of the English people.
> >
> Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
Yeah, I see what this is about. Good riddance to *good* rubbish, good
rubbish.
Jeff Rubard
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > >
>
> This is more effort than I would ordinarily expend on such a
> conversation, and yet I am indeed not being credited for it.
>
> > > This statement really makes any construal of any of my
> > > actions, past, present and future under that description "factually
> > > inaccurate", no matter who the reader is nor what the circumstances
are:
> > > "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to say.
> > > It's really pretty sinister.
> > >
> > What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for a
> > change.
>
> That's relevant to me. You become more imperious by the day.
>
Well it isn't relevant to our conversation.
> > > >>Why can't I cut losses now?
> > > >>
> > > > What losses?
> > > >
> > > Time and energy spent talking to you.
> > >
> > It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
>
> I'm sorry, they didn't let me in on "the point" so I tend to spend
> time making my own.
>
Whatever
> > > >>>Who is a beggar?
> > > >>
> > > >>Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
> > > >
> > > > Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you
want
> > to
> > > > decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can
the
> > > > taxation I suffer not be theft?
> > > >
> > > That's a libelous comment;
> >
> > No it is not.
>
> Yes it is. I'm not a thief, and saying so could negatively affect my
> employability.
You are a thief and too bad.
> I haven't called you a highwayman, although at times
> I've been tempted to suggest it, for that reason.
>
For what reason? Stating the truth?
> > > and seeing as how you're tens of thousands of miles away I don't
> > > expect these considerations to ever effectively clash. Except if you
> > > want to call me a thief without any evidence,
> >
> > You support taxation, that makes you a thief.
> >
> > > which you rather clearly
> > > do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not; no
more
> > > of that at all. I mean it.
> > >
> > You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
>
> Wow, you do know me pretty well (I usually let comments like that
> slide).
>
Well the truth should be left to slide.
> > > And here's the vague construal that makes me out to be just the
> > > more-or-less-conscious representative of a vast thieving group. I
wish
> > > I knew about them, too. In terms of "threats and punishment" for
> > > disobeying the law, it seems like you're unhappy about having to live
in
> > > civil society, doesn't seem to have much to do with this newsgroup.
> > >
> > A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in
short it
> > would not tax.
> > Now answer the question.
> > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it
and
> > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
disobey,
> > so now tell me how that is not theft?
>
> Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's the
> government; and in both our countries the government is democratic.
Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
> Do you have a problem with democracy?
YES!!! Just because more people think I should give them my money than
disagree does not stop it being theft.
> I'd say so, but I'm not you so
> I won't put words in your mouth.
>
Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by Aristotle.
> > > > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper
perhaps?
> > A
> > > > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that
of a
> > ten
> > > > year old?
> > > >
> > > Well, they cut out the part about Derrida once, so I'm going to be a
> > > little unkind and venture to say: right on the upper edge of your
> > > comprehension abilities.
> >
> > If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am wrong?
> > Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
>
> They're a little "roundabout", and I think people will know what I
> mean.
>
How is tax not theft?
I don't see that being roundabout.
> > I refer you to what I wrote
> > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps?
A
> > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a
ten
> > year old?
> > Read it again and you will see why your response was irrelevant.
>
> Indeed I do. The magazines were nonpolitical, if not too good: they
> wouldn't have hired you. So you're attempting to elide the fact that
> someone is qualified for a job you probably wouldn't be good at. Not
> too libertarian.
>
Not at all, I am saying you do not exhibit the necessary characteristics to
do what you have claimed to have done.
I am saying that the level of writing you would have sold must be very low.
> > > >>I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
> > > >>
> > > > Anything I would comment on anyway.
> > > >
> > > That's a massively unreasonable standpoint,
> >
> > How so?
>
> You don't know me, and you don't seem to interpret anything I say
> charitably enough to win a public argument, yet you seem not to feel
> that either the fact or the probability militates against you
> pronouncing upon me.
>
I do not comment on anything about you personally, so you are wrong.
You are now just trying to be a fool, i comment only on things when I know i
am right. In so far as science went I would therefore only comment on the
theories I understand and how relevant they are to the real world etc. Now
go away and try thinking before you reply, it may help your case.
> > > >>> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
> > > >>
> > > >>Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
> > > >>
> > > > It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
> > > >
> > > Well, that's pretty close to my own view but the point is saying that
> > > requires that you give up responsibility for knowing every relevant
fact
> > > of the matter: after all, you could be wrong, even about seemingly
> > > unshakeable certainties. In other words, you're not being
> > > intellectually responsible here.
> > >
> > Completely irrelevant. You are either correct or you are not, the
percentage
> > of the facts you know is irrelevant in that respect.
>
> Intellectual responsibility is irrelevant to discussion of political
> issues? What line of work are you in, again?
>
Fish don't grow on trees.
Ohh sorry You must not have understood that, afterall I am doing what you
did just then and changed the subject to something wilidly different.
Fact is you are either right to wrong, the level of information you had only
matters to why you think something is correct, it does not change the fact
that what you think is either right or wrong.
> > > > Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then
> > give
> > > > examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
> > > >
> > > That's one right there; you've expressed valuations of those "facts"
as
> > well.
> > >
> > They are facts, if they were not you would have been able to tell me
very
> > concisely why they were not facts.
>
> I started to talk about something different and more interesting.
> Sorry.
>
Guess that proves I am right then doesn't it?
> > > I don't like this at all. I am not advocating the use of force
against
> > > you,
> >
> > Yes you are.
>
> No, I'm not.
You don't vote Libertarian do you?
> You are not licensed to use force against me on your
> say-so (the rather obvious eventual upshot of such talk).
>
I am entitled to defend myself, yes. But I have no need to do so if you see
what you are doing and change your ways.
> > >and do not license the construal of "advocating taxes, victimless
> > > crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully interact with others" as
> > > doing so because that would give you or someone like you carte blanche
> > > in your mind to do whatever the hell you wanted to this "tyrant", who
> > > could be anyone out of the vast majority of residents of the United
> > > States (and perhaps New Zealand). Pretty jivey, *pretty dangerous*; I
> > > think you remind me of a real American shakedown artist I know more
than
> > > Neil Finn.
> > >
> > And here we have you avoiding the point again.
> > You support taxes.
> > You support victimless crimes
> > You support controls upon how I voluntarily interact with others.
> > The conclusion is that you can simply change your mind and leave me
alone by
> > voting libertarian, voting for anyone else means you are assisting the
> > government to force the three points above onto me.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not an anarchist.
And neither am I.
Mine is the only system where you can have as much democracy as you want, so
long as those in this democracy all agree to being bound to it. Any who
disagree are not bound by it.
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:qr6wb.10644$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > >
such
> > your
> > > > above statement is irrelevant to the point.
> > > >
> > > A lot of what you say is,
> >
> > Irrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at
particular
> > statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
> >
> > I never did that, i did say that you intentional misinterprested my
meaning.
> > If you did it accidentially then you would have to be very stupid
indeed.
> >
> > > For all you know, my emails could be modified by
> > > other hands prior to your reading them. (Isn't that right?)
> >
> > Unlikely.
>
> No, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
> of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
> meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
> I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
> or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
>
Your meaning would be unchanged and the bad sentence structure would still
be bad.
> > > Ordinarily
> > > that's not too important, but you've really set yourself up to have to
> > > know a lot more about me than is effectively possible.
> > >
> > No i ahve not.
>
> Yes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
> "propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
> family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
> "tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
> views.
>
well saying they are wrong is simple, they are.
> > > That's pretty funny, but I don't think like that; I correct myself
when
> > > I have been shown (sometimes just by looking at something I've
written)
> > > to be perhaps not knowledgeable enough about the matter at hand.
> >
> > If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will not.
>
> I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
>
I do not drink alcohol
> > > > Freedom helps everyoner
> > > >
> > > That's a pretty vague statement; infrastructure helps everyone in a
much
> > > more definite way (that's why we're here - the Internet wasn't
invented
> > > by private corporations, rather ARPA).
> >
> > And?
>
> Infrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
>
Sell the infrastructure, it does not fit the definition of a public good and
as sch is more efficiently controled by private ownership
> > > But infrastructure requires taxes.
> > >
> > Sell it off and it won't.
>
> That's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
> for it with taxes.
>
Is it built? Yes
Does it need to be built by taxes? No, private companies would if build it
if it was needed.
> > > See above. If you don't like "infrastructure", get off the Internet.
> >
> > I directly pay for it so your argument is nonsence.
>
> You directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
> be usable.
>
I pay what is necessary for a private company to allow me access. I pay what
little cost I impose to the system. It is a subject of economics, something
I have proven you do not understand.
> > > *I* don't have a big crowd; there's no equivalent to your chuckle crew
> > > (still unexplained) looking over my shoulder as I write this.
> > >
> > The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
>
> My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
> don't think too far beyond that.
>
They don't vote Libertarian, therefore they vote for my money. Try to skirt
round it all you want but the fact remains if you vote for anyoen else then
you are voting for my money.
> > > I don't understand what you're saying here.
> > >
> > > The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> > > taxation, that's not a communist thing.
> > >
> > Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be left
>
> > untaxed.
>
> Sometimes it's important.
>
So you can violate my rights if you think it is important?
Interesting.
> > > That's pretty funny, because you can't talk all you want
(non-disclosure
> > > agreements) and almost anything an aggrieved worker might do could be
> > > construed as "initiating force" due to arguments like yours from
> > > corporate lackeys.
> > >
> > Well that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
>
> That's right, but it still doesn't have too much to do with freedom.
>
The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up.
> > > They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around;
but
> > > those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
> >
> > Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever and
that
> > they did not initate force against you.
>
> The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
the police report you filed.
> I could have an
> executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
> about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
> else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
> other kind of trip.
>
The probility of that being true is zero, therefore I can say it didn't
happen.
> > > They don't really
> > > indicate the absence of coercion, as you are very quick to proclaim
> > > (you're telling yourself and other "free men" that).
> > >
> > What coercion did they use?
>
> This is a slip on your part, as the "they" mentioned here does not
> refer to some vague Army of Darkness which may or may not be coercive,
> but fine distinctions (which are perfectly all right with me).
>
The final resort of the defeated, semantics.
Tell me what force did these rich men use?
How did these rich men coerce you?
> > > I don't have a system, I'm not a Soviet-bloc supporter. (Is that
> > > surprising? It should be, but there are some things which need saying
> > > rather than reasonable assuming.)
> > >
> > Do you support democracy?
> > That is a system.
>
> Oh, is that your idea of communism?
No, but the result is close enough.
> Should I not vote Democratic at
> the next election, lest I be accused of initiating force worthy of
> self-defense?
>
Yes, voting for anyone but the Libertarians is an act of force.
> > > >>>
> > > Oh my.
> > >
> > If i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and logic
will
> > say exactly what I do.
>
> That's never true in practice (outside certain special cases, of
> course), and I don't happen to believe it's true in theory.
>
It is true in theory and practice. Reason applied to the same facts will
always mean the same result.
> > > > Where? did you post them in invisible text?
> > > >
> > > Maybe it's invisible to you, I don't know.
> > >
> > Well I haven't seen them.
>
> Well, too bad.
>
Yes because they didn't exist.
> > > "So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
> > > fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
> > > particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
> > >
> > I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
>
> You make imperious pronouncements.
>
Then give me an example of where I have?
> > > It's never spelled "precident", Commonwealth or no, and the following
> > > requires judgment-calls you and I aren't entitled to make.
> > >
> > No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't
higher
> > courts over rule the verdict.
>
> Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
> went over your head :)
>
Precident is always followed by judges and that is the end of this.
> > > > That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he
must
> > be
> > > > incorrect.
> > > >
> > > They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
> > >
> > Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is considered
to
> > be such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review, to
> > scrutiny and re-evaluation?
> > You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
>
> Don't waste my time, asshole; you're playing a lot faster and looser
> here (though not with the facts, I swear I wasn't saying that). It's
> just your creepolatrous tone which keeps me defusing your comments.
>
Just answer my questions, but then you can't because they prove you wrong.
> > > >>Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
> > > >>speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
> > > >>some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
> > > >>prior to refrigeration.
> > > >
> > > > And such information is readily given.
> > > >
> > > "Just a couple maggots, I swear. They'll give it a real good flavor."
> > > Do you think most sellers would say something like that?
> > >
> > Lawsuit, you lose.
> > Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called arguments
and
> > facts.
>
> You're a fool, what I say is true.
And that is what Lawsuits are for, this means you lose.
> > > That's not true at all,
> >
> > yes it is.
> >
> > > as the legal case can be crippling, are not
> > > necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
> > > corporations.
> > >
> > That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are the
> > cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
>
> There are civil-law actions against corporations. I swear.
>
Who said there weren't, infact I mentioned that as a reason that they would
not do bad things to their products.
> > > > Where? come one, where do i insult you?
> > > > I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
> > > >
> > > This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
> > >
> > Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing you
> > claimed I did.
> >
No response, this seems to be a pattern.
> > > > Like backing up your claims?
> > > >
> > > Your evidentiary standard is whether you agree with something.
> > >
> > My evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with you.
>
> I like people to agree with me.
>
Well start being right and maybe more people will agree with you.
> > > > I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
> > > >
> > > It is an art you can cultivate, this is true; but you can just do it,
too.
> > >
> > I don't want to.
>
> You can do it without wanting to, or even knowing that you're doing
> it.
>
Whatever.
> > > > That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens
> > arrest
> > > > but they are a vigilante.
> > > >
> > > No; they're following the letter of the law. You're opening a door to
> > > lynch mobs.
> > >
> > No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am right
and
> > you are wrong.
>
> It's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
>
No it is a matter of fact. A person whon uses ciizens arrest is a vigilante.
> > > > To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to
harm
> > you
> > > > with the knife.
> > > >
> > > Well, we've established you're not a cop, since a fatality is never
the
> > > desired outcome of a confrontation with a "perp".
> > >
> > It is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
>
> What is this supposed to mean, other than that you got whupped with an
> inconvenient fact (the kind I'm interested in).
>
How did I get whipped? I am not a policeman and never said I was.
> > > > It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
> > > >
> > > I haven't seen those movies.
> > >
> > well then have you seen Snatch?
> > Bullet tooth Tony has one.
>
> No, I didn't see that movie either; I know what a .50 caliber weapon
> is like (elephant guns), but I'm not that interested in projectile
> weaponry.
>
So? You don't have to be.
> > > > Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you
are so
> > > > irrational that you refuse to accept that.
> > > >
> > > I'm not into sitting, and I'm not self-satisfied. I'll leave
> > > irrationality calls to a "third party".
> > >
> > Well I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
>
> People like to say this, but they don't like to go through with it (I
> know, I'm always game for real). But you're far away from me, so
> maybe that's a good excuse.
>
That is just time wasting nonsence.
> > > >>>>What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> > > >>>When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force
principle?
> > Many
> > > >>>times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they
are, I
> > > >
> > > > have
> > > >
> > > >>>refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked
you
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > >>>look it up."
> > > >>
> > > >>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
> > > >>mind.
> > > >>
> > > > Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
> > > >
> > > The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
> >
> > No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of
force.
>
> You have one yourself (self-defense).
That is force in retaliation to force, it is by no means the initiation of
force.
Nice try though, I mean only a hundred other people have tried that one and
been burned by the inescapeable logic of self defence and the initiation of
force.
> > > I want to hear it from the source.
> > >
> > Look back and find it yourself, it should be easy enough.
>
> I figure that'd be rather difficult, because Fowler's advice is pretty
> nuanced (he tells you not to worry about using split infinitives, for
> example).
>
Who cares? You saked me to tell you have you said was wrong.
> > I am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond to
them.
>
> I will not do so following this post.
Good.
Not in the way you need it to for me to be wrong.
> Am I feeling stupid about this? Not at all.
>
It's still irrelevant.
> > > >>He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
> > > >>
> > > > He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the
other
> > ones
> > > > that were replaced.
> > > >
> > > As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in
Middle
> > > English. As far as Ć and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
> > > might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
> > > "originary" view of the English people.
> > >
> > Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
>
> Yeah, I see what this is about. Good riddance to *good* rubbish, good
> rubbish.
>
Fact is according to common law i do not have to help someone in peril if I
did not cause that peril
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > >
> > > Not at all, I have conversed, you simply ignore it.
> >
> > This is more effort than I would ordinarily expend on such a
> > conversation, and yet I am indeed not being credited for it.
> >
> Because the effort you expended did not have any results.
You don't know that, although on average that would be a *good*
outcome.
> > > > This statement really makes any construal of any of my
> > > > actions, past, present and future under that description "factually
> > > > inaccurate", no matter who the reader is nor what the circumstances
> are:
> > > > "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to say.
> > > > It's really pretty sinister.
> > > >
> > > What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for a
> > > change.
> >
> > That's relevant to me. You become more imperious by the day.
> >
> Well it isn't relevant to our conversation.
Tell me about it; or rather, don't, because that would be dictating,
not conversing.
> > > > >>Why can't I cut losses now?
> > > > >>
> > > > > What losses?
> > > > >
> > > > Time and energy spent talking to you.
> > > >
> > > It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
> >
> > I'm sorry, they didn't let me in on "the point" so I tend to spend
> > time making my own.
> >
> Whatever
Thank you, that's actually relatively gracious.
> > > > >>>Who is a beggar?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Me. I'm a TOer who wants to steal, remember?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes you are, how can you say otherwise? You want what I earn, you
> want
> to
> > > > > decide what happens to it, I do not want you to, therefore how can
> the
> > > > > taxation I suffer not be theft?
> > > > >
> > > > That's a libelous comment;
> > >
> > > No it is not.
> >
> > Yes it is. I'm not a thief, and saying so could negatively affect my
> > employability.
>
> You are a thief and too bad.
Let me put it like this: if you were Michael Powell from the FCC, I'd
be suing because once I dialed their phone number a lawyer would be
holding my hand down to do all the necessary paperwork. Stuart
Hawkins gets off the hook, because he's a regular Joe from NZ with no
very good idea of how things work in a capitalist system.
> > I haven't called you a highwayman, although at times
> > I've been tempted to suggest it, for that reason.
> >
> For what reason? Stating the truth?
No, that's not the impression I have.
> > > > and seeing as how you're tens of thousands of miles away I don't
> > > > expect these considerations to ever effectively clash. Except if you
> > > > want to call me a thief without any evidence,
> > >
> > > You support taxation, that makes you a thief.
> > >
> > > > which you rather clearly
> > > > do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not; no
> more
> > > > of that at all. I mean it.
> > > >
> > > You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
> >
> > Wow, you do know me pretty well (I usually let comments like that
> > slide).
> >
> Well the truth should be left to slide.
If that's the way you feel, I'll take my stands and take my chances.
That doesn't appear to be the way you feel.
> > > > And here's the vague construal that makes me out to be just the
> > > > more-or-less-conscious representative of a vast thieving group. I
> wish
> > > > I knew about them, too. In terms of "threats and punishment" for
> > > > disobeying the law, it seems like you're unhappy about having to live
> in
> > > > civil society, doesn't seem to have much to do with this newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in
> short it
> > > would not tax.
> > > Now answer the question.
> > > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep it
> and
> > > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
> disobey,
> > > so now tell me how that is not theft?
> >
> > Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's the
> > government; and in both our countries the government is democratic.
>
> Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
Well, then there are a lot of people like me. You like truths a lot,
but you don't seem to like extrapolating consequences from them
(enough). Not a mark of rationality, just a mark.
> > Do you have a problem with democracy?
>
> YES!!! Just because more people think I should give them my money than
> disagree does not stop it being theft.
Okay; I can actually even relate to this a little bit.
> > I'd say so, but I'm not you so
> > I won't put words in your mouth.
> >
> Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by Aristotle.
>
> > > > > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper
> perhaps?
> A
> > > > > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that
> of a
> ten
> > > > > year old?
> > > > >
> > > > Well, they cut out the part about Derrida once, so I'm going to be a
> > > > little unkind and venture to say: right on the upper edge of your
> > > > comprehension abilities.
> > >
> > > If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am wrong?
> > > Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
> >
> > They're a little "roundabout", and I think people will know what I
> > mean.
> >
> How is tax not theft?
> I don't see that being roundabout.
Because you accept other services from a government simply by living
and working in a country; that doesn't give them carte blanche to do
with you as they see fit, but it does provide a rationale for
taxation.
> > > I refer you to what I wrote
> > > And what is the level of this alleged written work? A newspaper perhaps?
> A
> > > socialist/Communist 'rag'? Any way it's reading level is what, that of a
> ten
> > > year old?
> > > Read it again and you will see why your response was irrelevant.
> >
> > Indeed I do. The magazines were nonpolitical, if not too good: they
> > wouldn't have hired you. So you're attempting to elide the fact that
> > someone is qualified for a job you probably wouldn't be good at. Not
> > too libertarian.
> >
> Not at all, I am saying you do not exhibit the necessary characteristics to
> do what you have claimed to have done.
> I am saying that the level of writing you would have sold must be very low.
It doesn't matter; you're not an expert (frankly, you're not giving
any evidence that you're even a competent judge of this) and the
second comment does not align with comments offered at that time by
people with something riding on what I was writing (their ass). The
real matter of fact has already been decided to the contrary; and if
you were an important person, this would be an extremely oppressive
comment (HE'S NOT A GOOD WRITER) but I can deal with it from you.
> > > > >>I have a feeling you'd be right concerning anything about me.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Anything I would comment on anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > That's a massively unreasonable standpoint,
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > You don't know me, and you don't seem to interpret anything I say
> > charitably enough to win a public argument, yet you seem not to feel
> > that either the fact or the probability militates against you
> > pronouncing upon me.
> >
> I do not comment on anything about you personally, so you are wrong.
That's a lie, I can't believe you're confused enough not to understand
that you are in fact doing so. I'm really tired of you, and not
because you've thrashed me.
I was going to let you have the last word in this thread with respect
to philosophy of science (see how oppressive I am), but as far as I
can tell science is just another thing you can use to control
discussions and that's frankly stupid. Hey, it happens, but I've got
other fish to fry.
> > > > >>> Being correct is absolute and can not be divided by compartvies.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Oh, that's an interesting perspective.
> > > > >>
> > > > > It is objective fact, either you are correct or you are not.
> > > > >
> > > > Well, that's pretty close to my own view but the point is saying that
> > > > requires that you give up responsibility for knowing every relevant
> fact
> > > > of the matter: after all, you could be wrong, even about seemingly
> > > > unshakeable certainties. In other words, you're not being
> > > > intellectually responsible here.
> > > >
> > > Completely irrelevant. You are either correct or you are not, the
> percentage
> > > of the facts you know is irrelevant in that respect.
> >
> > Intellectual responsibility is irrelevant to discussion of political
> > issues? What line of work are you in, again?
> >
> Fish don't grow on trees.
> Ohh sorry You must not have understood that, afterall I am doing what you
> did just then and changed the subject to something wilidly different.
> Fact is you are either right to wrong, the level of information you had only
> matters to why you think something is correct, it does not change the fact
> that what you think is either right or wrong.
No, that's true but it doesn't seem relevant. Stop telling me how
your judgments are facts, it's maliciously stupid.
> > > > > Really? I have stated facts and only facts. Now if you disagree then
> give
> > > > > examples of this wish-fulfillment etc.
> > > > >
> > > > That's one right there; you've expressed valuations of those "facts"
> as
> well.
> > > >
> > > They are facts, if they were not you would have been able to tell me
> very
> > > concisely why they were not facts.
> >
> > I started to talk about something different and more interesting.
> > Sorry.
> >
> Guess that proves I am right then doesn't it?
Ask someone else.
> > > > I don't like this at all. I am not advocating the use of force
> against
> > > > you,
> > >
> > > Yes you are.
> >
> > No, I'm not.
>
> You don't vote Libertarian do you?
No, I don't; I don't like to smoke dope. That's a joke (I don't care
for it enough to spend energy on legalizing it, I have other
problems), but I don't agree with most Libertarian positions. The
small-l adjective applies more widely, though; there are libertarian
Democrats and Republicans.
> > You are not licensed to use force against me on your
> > say-so (the rather obvious eventual upshot of such talk).
> >
> I am entitled to defend myself, yes. But I have no need to do so if you see
> what you are doing and change your ways.
Shut up, you are becoming threatening and if you are in New Zealand
that is frankly weak behavior (we could have it out today if you lived
in the Portland Metro Area). Why don't you change your ways?
> > > >and do not license the construal of "advocating taxes, victimless
> > > > crimes, and controls upon how I peacefully interact with others" as
> > > > doing so because that would give you or someone like you carte blanche
> > > > in your mind to do whatever the hell you wanted to this "tyrant", who
> > > > could be anyone out of the vast majority of residents of the United
> > > > States (and perhaps New Zealand). Pretty jivey, *pretty dangerous*; I
> > > > think you remind me of a real American shakedown artist I know more
> than
> > > > Neil Finn.
> > > >
> > > And here we have you avoiding the point again.
> > > You support taxes.
> > > You support victimless crimes
> > > You support controls upon how I voluntarily interact with others.
> > > The conclusion is that you can simply change your mind and leave me
> alone by
> > > voting libertarian, voting for anyone else means you are assisting the
> > > government to force the three points above onto me.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm not an anarchist.
>
> And neither am I.
> Mine is the only system where you can have as much democracy as you want, so
> long as those in this democracy all agree to being bound to it. Any who
> disagree are not bound by it.
And what are they gonna do?
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:qr6wb.10644$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > The statement and question I asked was not self congratulatory, as
> such
> your
> > > > > above statement is irrelevant to the point.
> > > > >
> > > > A lot of what you say is,
> > >
> > > Irrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at
> particular
> > > statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
> > >
> No answer again
I'm sorry, I'm not spending all my time thinking about this thread.
*Yet*, *Yet*.
> > > I never did that, i did say that you intentional misinterprested my
> meaning.
> > > If you did it accidentially then you would have to be very stupid
> indeed.
> > >
> > > > For all you know, my emails could be modified by
> > > > other hands prior to your reading them. (Isn't that right?)
> > >
> > > Unlikely.
> >
> > No, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
> > of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
> > meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
> > I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
> > or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
> >
> Your meaning would be unchanged and the bad sentence structure would still
> be bad.
Oh no, it's an undercover phrase structure grammarian!
> > > > Ordinarily
> > > > that's not too important, but you've really set yourself up to have to
> > > > know a lot more about me than is effectively possible.
> > > >
> > > No i ahve not.
> >
> > Yes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
> > "propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
> > family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
> > "tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
> > views.
> >
> well saying they are wrong is simple, they are.
That's not the way most people think about what other people say, and
for good reasons.
> > > > That's pretty funny, but I don't think like that; I correct myself
> when
> > > > I have been shown (sometimes just by looking at something I've
> written)
> > > > to be perhaps not knowledgeable enough about the matter at hand.
> > >
> > > If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will not.
> >
> > I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
> >
> I do not drink alcohol
Well, that makes it easy. I don't drive; that makes it easy, too.
> > > > > Freedom helps everyoner
> > > > >
> > > > That's a pretty vague statement; infrastructure helps everyone in a
> much
> > > > more definite way (that's why we're here - the Internet wasn't
> invented
> > > > by private corporations, rather ARPA).
> > >
> > > And?
> >
> > Infrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
> >
> Sell the infrastructure, it does not fit the definition of a public good and
> as sch is more efficiently controled by private ownership
On whose authority should we alienate public property, such that it
can be "efficiently controlled" by a special interest? That's a kind
of "takings" too.
> > > > But infrastructure requires taxes.
> > > >
> > > Sell it off and it won't.
> >
> > That's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
> > for it with taxes.
> >
> Is it built? Yes
> Does it need to be built by taxes? No, private companies would if build it
> if it was needed.
Well, they'd build it if the technology was already available or could
be cheaply and easily developed. Otherwise it might never happen,
like the moon landings and maybe even the Internet.
> > > > See above. If you don't like "infrastructure", get off the Internet.
> > >
> > > I directly pay for it so your argument is nonsence.
> >
> > You directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
> > be usable.
> >
> I pay what is necessary for a private company to allow me access. I pay what
> little cost I impose to the system. It is a subject of economics, something
> I have proven you do not understand.
That's not the only cost to you being on the Internet, and I'm not
even being funny.
> > > > *I* don't have a big crowd; there's no equivalent to your chuckle crew
> > > > (still unexplained) looking over my shoulder as I write this.
> > > >
> > > The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
> >
> > My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
> > don't think too far beyond that.
> >
> They don't vote Libertarian, therefore they vote for my money. Try to skirt
> round it all you want but the fact remains if you vote for anyoen else then
> you are voting for my money.
Well, they're pretty far away in a different country; I don't see why
you should be concerned.
> > > > I don't understand what you're saying here.
> > > >
> > > > The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> > > > taxation, that's not a communist thing.
> > > >
> > > Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be left
>
> > > untaxed.
> >
> > Sometimes it's important.
> >
> So you can violate my rights if you think it is important?
> Interesting.
I can't violate your rights; I don't even have the capacity to do
that. The government here can't violate your rights, either; but they
can "redefine" their defense and support of those rights (pending
judicial approval, of course).
> > > > That's pretty funny, because you can't talk all you want
> (non-disclosure
> > > > agreements) and almost anything an aggrieved worker might do could be
> > > > construed as "initiating force" due to arguments like yours from
> > > > corporate lackeys.
> > > >
> > > Well that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
> >
> > That's right, but it still doesn't have too much to do with freedom.
> >
> The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
> limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
> valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up.
NDAs limit your degrees of freedom in action (and if you don't think
so, you don't understand what you're doing, and "ignorance of the law
is no excuse" is a hoary statement of Anglophone law). Is this
onerous? Not really, but I feel the same way about taxes.
> > > > They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around;
> but
> > > > those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
> > >
> > > Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever and
> that
> > > they did not initate force against you.
> >
> > The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
>
> Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
> the police report you filed.
Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
about my life.
> > I could have an
> > executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
> > about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
> > else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
> > other kind of trip.
> >
> The probility of that being true is zero, therefore I can say it didn't
> happen.
Firstly, you're never justified in assigning a probability of zero to
an event which does not violate the laws of physics (biology be
damned, even). Secondly, why did you feel the need to modify that
comment such that "the hell you can, those are empirical statements"
was removed? That seems to be of a piece with the issues addressed in
your repsonse.
> > > > They don't really
> > > > indicate the absence of coercion, as you are very quick to proclaim
> > > > (you're telling yourself and other "free men" that).
> > > >
> > > What coercion did they use?
> >
> > This is a slip on your part, as the "they" mentioned here does not
> > refer to some vague Army of Darkness which may or may not be coercive,
> > but fine distinctions (which are perfectly all right with me).
> >
> The final resort of the defeated, semantics.
> Tell me what force did these rich men use?
> How did these rich men coerce you?
Well, I kinda think/hope so, actually; but you're really fucking up on
syntactic/proof-theoretic issues so I'm not too concerned right now.
And a way you can coerce people is by bothering them when they're
trying to do other things, rich man or no; it's actually a pretty
street thing to do, but less onerous from panhandlers who can't get
back at you for not letting them rip you off (in quite so many ways).
(Do I have to prove such a thing occurred? No, actually.)
> > > > I don't have a system, I'm not a Soviet-bloc supporter. (Is that
> > > > surprising? It should be, but there are some things which need saying
> > > > rather than reasonable assuming.)
> > > >
> > > Do you support democracy?
> > > That is a system.
> >
> > Oh, is that your idea of communism?
>
> No, but the result is close enough.
Oh, that's a winner.
> > Should I not vote Democratic at
> > the next election, lest I be accused of initiating force worthy of
> > self-defense?
> >
> Yes, voting for anyone but the Libertarians is an act of force.
That's a winner, too (you believe in me, you've got no bounds).
> > > > >>>
> > > > Oh my.
> > > >
> > > If i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and logic
> will
> > > say exactly what I do.
> >
> > That's never true in practice (outside certain special cases, of
> > course), and I don't happen to believe it's true in theory.
> >
> It is true in theory and practice. Reason applied to the same facts will
> always mean the same result.
That's not borne out by the history of science; it (at least formerly)
didn't involve people speculating that everyone who came before them
was "seriously mentally defective", just that they missed an important
detail or two.
> > > > > Where? did you post them in invisible text?
> > > > >
> > > > Maybe it's invisible to you, I don't know.
> > > >
> > > Well I haven't seen them.
> >
> > Well, too bad.
> >
> Yes because they didn't exist.
Those weren't the arguments you were looking for. It was a trick, ha
ha ha.
(Oh, shit, what can I say?)
> > > > "So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
> > > > fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
> > > > particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
> > > >
> > > I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
> >
> > You make imperious pronouncements.
> >
> Then give me an example of where I have?
Any time you say "I am right and you are wrong and that's all there is
to it", that's an imperious statement. There are scads of them in
this thread.
> > > > It's never spelled "precident", Commonwealth or no, and the following
> > > > requires judgment-calls you and I aren't entitled to make.
> > > >
> > > No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't
> higher
> > > courts over rule the verdict.
> >
> > Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
> > went over your head :)
> >
> Precident is always followed by judges and that is the end of this.
Precedent is followed and made by judges, and there ain't no "i" in
it. That's a precedent most people follow, which is the end of my
respect for your understanding of the law.
> > > > > That's funny, seeing as common law cases are very predictable, he
> must
> be
> > > > > incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
> > > >
> > > Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is considered
> to
> > > be such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review, to
> > > scrutiny and re-evaluation?
> > > You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
> >
> > Don't waste my time, asshole; you're playing a lot faster and looser
> > here (though not with the facts, I swear I wasn't saying that). It's
> > just your creepolatrous tone which keeps me defusing your comments.
> >
> Just answer my questions, but then you can't because they prove you wrong.
Well, maybe you should believe that.
> > > > >>Mead is an "adulterated" product from a certain angle, and generally
> > > > >>speaking a lot of foodstuffs have had to be preserved or treated in
> > > > >>some fashion or other because the raw, pure product wouldn't keep
> > > > >>prior to refrigeration.
> > > > >
> > > > > And such information is readily given.
> > > > >
> > > > "Just a couple maggots, I swear. They'll give it a real good flavor."
> > > > Do you think most sellers would say something like that?
> > > >
> > > Lawsuit, you lose.
> > > Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called arguments
> and
> > > facts.
> >
> > You're a fool, what I say is true.
>
> And that is what Lawsuits are for, this means you lose.
I don't understand this comment, the law is not for fooling (rather
strictly circumscribes it, in fact).
> > > > That's not true at all,
> > >
> > > yes it is.
> > >
> > > > as the legal case can be crippling, are not
> > > > necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
> > > > corporations.
> > > >
> > > That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are the
> > > cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
> >
> > There are civil-law actions against corporations. I swear.
> >
> Who said there weren't, infact I mentioned that as a reason that they would
> not do bad things to their products.
You said there was not a historical precedent for it, which there is;
products were adulterated with other things in the 19th century,
before regulation.
> > > > > Where? come one, where do i insult you?
> > > > > I can name half a dozen occasions where you insult me.
> > > > >
> > > > This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
> > > >
> > > Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing you
> > > claimed I did.
> > >
> No response, this seems to be a pattern.
Yes, I am here to answer other kinds of questions.
> > > > > Like backing up your claims?
> > > > >
> > > > Your evidentiary standard is whether you agree with something.
> > > >
> > > My evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with you.
> >
> > I like people to agree with me.
> >
> Well start being right and maybe more people will agree with you.
Oh, so you're the arbiter of right reason, too? Wow, I had no idea
who I was talking to.
> > > > > I am not 'jiving' and have never 'jived'
> > > > >
> > > > It is an art you can cultivate, this is true; but you can just do it,
> too.
> > > >
> > > I don't want to.
> >
> > You can do it without wanting to, or even knowing that you're doing
> > it.
> >
> Whatever.
This is not jive. This is snide, it's different.
> > > > > That citizen is still a vigilante, what they performed is a citizens
> arrest
> > > > > but they are a vigilante.
> > > > >
> > > > No; they're following the letter of the law. You're opening a door to
> > > > lynch mobs.
> > > >
> > > No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am right
> and
> > > you are wrong.
> >
> > It's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
> >
> No it is a matter of fact. A person whon uses ciizens arrest is a vigilante.
No.
> > > > > To ensure he dies or is sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to
> harm
> you
> > > > > with the knife.
> > > > >
> > > > Well, we've established you're not a cop, since a fatality is never
> the
> > > > desired outcome of a confrontation with a "perp".
> > > >
> > > It is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
> >
> > What is this supposed to mean, other than that you got whupped with an
> > inconvenient fact (the kind I'm interested in).
> >
> How did I get whipped? I am not a policeman and never said I was.
No, you're a jerk itching for a "serious problem" with someone, which
was what I was demonstrating (I was perfectly aware you weren't a cop
prior to that).
> > > > > It's a pistol, the same one the agents in the Matrix use.
> > > > >
> > > > I haven't seen those movies.
> > > >
> > > well then have you seen Snatch?
> > > Bullet tooth Tony has one.
> >
> > No, I didn't see that movie either; I know what a .50 caliber weapon
> > is like (elephant guns), but I'm not that interested in projectile
> > weaponry.
> >
> So? You don't have to be.
Good, every little bit helps. (Ladies, I'm not a gun nut!)
> > > > > Sit self satisfied that I ahve shown you to be wrong and that you
> are so
> > > > > irrational that you refuse to accept that.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm not into sitting, and I'm not self-satisfied. I'll leave
> > > > irrationality calls to a "third party".
> > > >
> > > Well I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
> >
> > People like to say this, but they don't like to go through with it (I
> > know, I'm always game for real). But you're far away from me, so
> > maybe that's a good excuse.
> >
> That is just time wasting nonsence.
Try me.
> > > > >>>>What does that have to do with one theorem of economics?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>When did I tell you to look up RW=MPL? Never?
> > > > >>>When did I tell you to look up the non-initation of force
> principle?
> Many
> > > > >>>times, one of which I was referring to when I said "Ohh but they
> are, I
> > > > >
> > > > > have
> > > > >
> > > > >>>refered to the premis many times. Infact I have just recently asked
> you
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > >>>look it up."
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is the version that comes to
> > > > >>mind.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Polonius' advice to his son. Now tell me how that is relevant?
> > > > >
> > > > The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
> > >
> > > No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of
> force.
> >
> > You have one yourself (self-defense).
>
> That is force in retaliation to force, it is by no means the initiation of
> force.
> Nice try though, I mean only a hundred other people have tried that one and
> been burned by the inescapeable logic of self defence and the initiation of
> force.
There's no such thing as inescapable logic. That's something else.
Trust me.
> > > > I want to hear it from the source.
> > > >
> > > Look back and find it yourself, it should be easy enough.
> >
> > I figure that'd be rather difficult, because Fowler's advice is pretty
> > nuanced (he tells you not to worry about using split infinitives, for
> > example).
> >
> Who cares? You saked me to tell you have you said was wrong.
>
> > > I am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond to
> them.
> >
> > I will not do so following this post.
>
> Good.
Changed my mind, actually. I haven't been enjoying this the whole
time, but sometimes you really shouldn't stop when you want to.
No, if you're associated with somebody concerning a business project
and they do something bad, you can be held responsible even if you
didn't approve or "didn't know". Sorry, ask any lawyer.
> > Am I feeling stupid about this? Not at all.
> >
> It's still irrelevant.
Tell me about it.
> > > > >>He wasn't a Pict, he didn't write in Runic.
> > > > >>
> > > > > He still used the character that was replaced by th and all the
> other
> ones
> > > > > that were replaced.
> > > > >
> > > > As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in
> Middle
> > > > English. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
> > > > might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
> > > > "originary" view of the English people.
> > > >
> > > Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
> >
> > Yeah, I see what this is about. Good riddance to *good* rubbish, good
> > rubbish.
> >
> Fact is according to common law i do not have to help someone in peril if I
> did not cause that peril
No, if you had foreknowledge (and lord, you have knowledge enough) of
the possibility of harm and are benefitting either from cutting
corners on safety measures or *the harm itself*, there's a *very*
genuine legal question about culpability even if you refrained from
acting. Anything else is a story people tell themselves.
Stuart Hawkins
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fc3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:qr6wb.10644$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > particular
> > > > statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
> > > >
> > No answer again
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not spending all my time thinking about this thread.
> *Yet*, *Yet*.
>
therefore you have no reason to not have answered it.
> > > No, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
> > > of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
> > > meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
> > > I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
> > > or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
> > >
> > Your meaning would be unchanged and the bad sentence structure would
still
> > be bad.
>
> Oh no, it's an undercover phrase structure grammarian!
>
When your meaning is as obfuscated as yours has been, it becomes important
to correct these things.
> > > Yes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
> > > "propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
> > > family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
> > > "tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
> > > views.
> > >
> > well saying they are wrong is simple, they are.
>
> That's not the way most people think about what other people say, and
> for good reasons.
>
What good reason? In reality wither their opinions are right or wrong. If
two people think different things about the same topic, then only one may be
right and the other by definition is wrong. Now if these two people were to
discuss why they are right or wrong the one that actually mananges to make
points that can not be refuted by the other and whos points can refute said
others points, is extremely likely to be the one who is correct.
> > > > If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will
not.
> > >
> > > I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
> > >
> > I do not drink alcohol
>
> Well, that makes it easy. I don't drive; that makes it easy, too.
>
Then you are disadvantaged then aren't you.
> > > > And?
> > >
> > > Infrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
> > >
> > Sell the infrastructure, it does not fit the definition of a public good
and
> > as sch is more efficiently controled by private ownership
>
> On whose authority should we alienate public property, such that it
> can be "efficiently controlled" by a special interest?
By authority of reasons application to the real world. In doing so we
discover economics and economics tells us that government should only
provide public goods (those that are non-rival and non-excludeable), of
which the only two identified for government supply are the police (law) and
the army (Air force, navy, etc)
> That's a kind
> of "takings" too.
>
No it is not, tell me how it is taking by selling the products of theft on
the open market for the highest price possible and seeing as returning the
funds to their rightful owners is IMPOSSIBLE using that money to supply
public goods for all eternty without taxing ANYONE?
> > > That's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
> > > for it with taxes.
> > >
> > Is it built? Yes
> > Does it need to be built by taxes? No, private companies would if build
it
> > if it was needed.
>
> Well, they'd build it if the technology was already available or could
> be cheaply and easily developed. Otherwise it might never happen,
> like the moon landings and maybe even the Internet.
>
Says you? So what proof do you have of this anyway? None? I thought so.
Everything with a potential for profit would be funded and researched, and
in a free market it would be better funded. If you think otherwise just look
at the human genome project, it was supposed to take untill the year 3000+
when government was doing it and it was on track too. Then they turned it
over to private companies and BAM fininshed in one year, despite the fact it
was dozens of times more complicated then those making the predictions
realised.
The only one of the two items you mentioned that might possibly not ahve
occured is the moon landing and that is because it has done nothing to help
anyone in any way, the space project would be going along swimmingly but
landing on the moon might have been put on the back burner for a while.
> > > You directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
> > > be usable.
> > >
> > I pay what is necessary for a private company to allow me access. I pay
what
> > little cost I impose to the system. It is a subject of economics,
something
> > I have proven you do not understand.
>
> That's not the only cost to you being on the Internet, and I'm not
> even being funny.
>
That has been disproven, if it were true the company would not allow me
access as they would then be operating at a loss.
> > > > The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
> > >
> > > My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
> > > don't think too far beyond that.
> > >
> > They don't vote Libertarian, therefore they vote for my money. Try to
skirt
> > round it all you want but the fact remains if you vote for anyoen else
then
> > you are voting for my money.
>
> Well, they're pretty far away in a different country; I don't see why
> you should be concerned.
>
Hitler killed Jews in Europe, that was pretty far away but I still would
have decried it.
The Rusian Commies killed Cossacks in Europe, that was pretty far away but I
still would have decried it.
The Chinese Commies starved millions in China, that was pretty far away but
I still would have decried it.
Etc etc etc.
> > > > > The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> > > > > taxation, that's not a communist thing.
> > > > >
> > > > Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be
left
> > > > untaxed.
> > >
> > > Sometimes it's important.
> > >
> > So you can violate my rights if you think it is important?
> > Interesting.
>
> I can't violate your rights;
Yes you can, it is very simple all you need to do is vote for someone other
than the Libertarians.
> I don't even have the capacity to do
> that.
By voting for someone who supports immigration laws, taxation, trade
restrictions etc, by doing any of these things you violate my rights as a
human being.
> The government here can't violate your rights, either;
1. Immigration laws, I have the right to go where I choose. Seeing that is
the case taxation etc are a violation of my rights.
2. Trade restrictions, I have the right to trade with whomever I wish under
whatever conditions both I and whom I am trading with find agreeable.
3. International policy, I have the right to be left alone and so lonmg as
governments send troops around and expect other countried to follow suit, my
right is being trampelled. I do have to pay for the NZ troops in Afganistan
and Iraq you know.
Well these three ways, I guess that means you are wrong yet again.
> but they
> can "redefine" their defense and support of those rights (pending
> judicial approval, of course).
>
No they can not, they may have the power to do that but they do not have the
right.
> > > > Well that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
> > >
> > > That's right, but it still doesn't have too much to do with freedom.
> > >
> > The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
> > limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given
is
> > valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up.
>
> NDAs limit your degrees of freedom in action
Yes but you agreed to be limited so it is not an act of force.
> (and if you don't think
> so, you don't understand what you're doing, and "ignorance of the law
> is no excuse" is a hoary statement of Anglophone law).
"The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up."
I think I say in there that your freedom is limited by the agreement but
that limitation is self imposed.
The company does not limit your freedom, you do. It is trading, you give up
something for something you want.
> Is this
> onerous? Not really, but I feel the same way about taxes.
>
Who cares what you feel?
> > > > > They didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was
around;
> > but
> > > > > those are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
> > > >
> > > > Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever
and
> > that
> > > > they did not initate force against you.
> > >
> > > The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
> >
> > Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already
mentioned
> > the police report you filed.
>
> Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
> don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
> about my life.
>
You said they enterd your house without permission and forced you to listen
to them and then clap when they had finished, that is an extremely violent
criminal action.
> > > I could have an
> > > executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
> > > about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
> > > else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
> > > other kind of trip.
> > >
> > The probility of that being true is zero, therefore I can say it didn't
> > happen.
>
> Firstly, you're never justified in assigning a probability of zero to
> an event which does not violate the laws of physics
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates stealing
candy from a baby.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me caring at all for
someone with no money.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me Bungy jumping.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to you winning a discussion
of economics or philosophy with me.
> (biology be
> damned, even).
Why after all you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates being the
father of Tiger Woods with biology.
> Secondly, why did you feel the need to modify that
> comment such that "the hell you can, those are empirical statements"
> was removed?
Actually it wasn't removed, if you would like to check it is right there, I
shall ev en repost the relevant section for you
"> > > The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
> >
> > Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already
mentioned
> > the police report you filed.
>
> Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
> don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
> about my life."
As you can see I replied to it rather than removed it.
> That seems to be of a piece with the issues addressed in
> your repsonse.
>
Well that is why I said
"Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
the police report you filed."
in response to it.
> > > This is a slip on your part, as the "they" mentioned here does not
> > > refer to some vague Army of Darkness which may or may not be coercive,
> > > but fine distinctions (which are perfectly all right with me).
> > >
> > The final resort of the defeated, semantics.
> > Tell me what force did these rich men use?
> > How did these rich men coerce you?
>
> Well, I kinda think/hope so, actually; but you're really fucking up on
> syntactic/proof-theoretic issues so I'm not too concerned right now.
> And a way you can coerce people is by bothering them when they're
> trying to do other things, rich man or no; it's actually a pretty
> street thing to do, but less onerous from panhandlers who can't get
> back at you for not letting them rip you off (in quite so many ways).
> (Do I have to prove such a thing occurred? No, actually.)
>
Irrelevant, all of that is nonsence. you made the claim that rich men forced
you to listen to them while in your homen and that they made you clap after
they finished. You MUST prove this occured, failure to do so is proof that
you lied.
> > > > Do you support democracy?
> > > > That is a system.
> > >
> > > Oh, is that your idea of communism?
> >
> > No, but the result is close enough.
>
> Oh, that's a winner.
>
A belief that you should interfere with other people's lives and business.
> > > Should I not vote Democratic at
> > > the next election, lest I be accused of initiating force worthy of
> > > self-defense?
> > >
> > Yes, voting for anyone but the Libertarians is an act of force.
>
> That's a winner, too (you believe in me, you've got no bounds).
>
Yes it is, voting for anyone else is supporting victimless crimes, taxation
and general rights violations by governmet.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > If i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and
logic
> > will
> > > > say exactly what I do.
> > >
> > > That's never true in practice (outside certain special cases, of
> > > course), and I don't happen to believe it's true in theory.
> > >
> > It is true in theory and practice. Reason applied to the same facts will
> > always mean the same result.
>
> That's not borne out by the history of science;
Yes it is, science proves my position quite well.
> it (at least formerly)
> didn't involve people speculating that everyone who came before them
> was "seriously mentally defective", just that they missed an important
> detail or two.
>
So in other words they applied reason to different facts.
By way of not seeing or being unable to see all the facts (or even the
admittedly limited number physicists etc can see currently) they came to
different conclusions on how to explain the occurances we see daily, I
think, no, I know that is perfectly conducive with my position. For your
argument to be correct it would mean two people theorising over momentum
could come up with wildly different equations from observing the exact same
data.
> > > Well, too bad.
> > >
> > Yes because they didn't exist.
>
> Those weren't the arguments you were looking for. It was a trick, ha
> ha ha.
> (Oh, shit, what can I say?)
>
If they didn't exist, nothing.
If they did exist you could look them up and repost them here as I have done
in this post with your claim I deleted a section when i clearly had not.
> > > > > "So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no
matter of
> > > > > fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
> > > > > particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
> > >
> > > You make imperious pronouncements.
> > >
> > Then give me an example of where I have?
>
> Any time you say "I am right and you are wrong and that's all there is
> to it", that's an imperious statement. There are scads of them in
> this thread.
>
well when I am right and you are wrong there is little else to do but point
it out.
> > > > No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't
> > higher
> > > > courts over rule the verdict.
> > >
> > > Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
> > > went over your head :)
> > >
> > Precident is always followed by judges and that is the end of this.
>
> Precedent is followed and made by judges, and there ain't no "i" in
> it. That's a precedent most people follow, which is the end of my
> respect for your understanding of the law.
>
Ohh so mispelling removes the fact I am right? Interesting.
> > > > > They're really not. Ask a lawyer.
> > > > >
> > > > Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is
considered
> > to
> > > > be such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review,
to
> > > > scrutiny and re-evaluation?
> > > > You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
> > >
> > > Don't waste my time, asshole; you're playing a lot faster and looser
> > > here (though not with the facts, I swear I wasn't saying that). It's
> > > just your creepolatrous tone which keeps me defusing your comments.
> > >
> > Just answer my questions, but then you can't because they prove you
wrong.
>
> Well, maybe you should believe that.
>
If you could answer them you would have, it would be a lot simpler and
faster than doing what you are now
> > > > Lawsuit, you lose.
> > > > Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called
arguments
> > and
> > > > facts.
> > >
> > > You're a fool, what I say is true.
> >
> > And that is what Lawsuits are for, this means you lose.
>
> I don't understand this comment, the law is not for fooling (rather
> strictly circumscribes it, in fact).
>
Lawsuits are for making sure suppliers prevent maggots etc.
> > > > > as the legal case can be crippling, are not
> > > > > necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
> > > > > corporations.
> > > > >
> > > > That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are
the
> > > > cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
> > >
> > > There are civil-law actions against corporations. I swear.
> > >
> > Who said there weren't, infact I mentioned that as a reason that they
would
> > not do bad things to their products.
>
> You said there was not a historical precedent for it, which there is;
No I did not.
> products were adulterated with other things in the 19th century,
> before regulation.
>
regulation is irrelevant, common law is enough.
> > > > > This is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
> > > > >
> > > > Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing
you
> > > > claimed I did.
> > > >
> > No response, this seems to be a pattern.
>
> Yes, I am here to answer other kinds of questions.
>
Well I suggest you start doing so.
And why do you not answer questions to back up your claims? Is it because
you can't?
> > > > My evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with
you.
> > >
> > > I like people to agree with me.
> > >
> > Well start being right and maybe more people will agree with you.
>
> Oh, so you're the arbiter of right reason, too?
right reason? No.
Reason? Well reason needs no arbiter but reason.
> Wow, I had no idea
> who I was talking to.
>
Neither did I, I now see the Tick is real and still needing to be returned
to where he came from.
> > > You can do it without wanting to, or even knowing that you're doing
> > > it.
> > >
> > Whatever.
>
> This is not jive. This is snide, it's different.
>
How said it was 'jive'?
> > > > No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am
right
> > and
> > > > you are wrong.
> > >
> > > It's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
> > >
> > No it is a matter of fact. A person whon uses ciizens arrest is a
vigilante.
>
> No.
Deny it all you want, it just means you are wrong.
>
> > > > It is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
> > >
> > > What is this supposed to mean, other than that you got whupped with an
> > > inconvenient fact (the kind I'm interested in).
> > >
> > How did I get whipped? I am not a policeman and never said I was.
>
> No, you're a jerk itching for a "serious problem" with someone, which
> was what I was demonstrating (I was perfectly aware you weren't a cop
> prior to that).
>
How does stating that a criminal should die rather than an peacefull person
get injured mean that I am itching for a serious problem with someone?
> > > No, I didn't see that movie either; I know what a .50 caliber weapon
> > > is like (elephant guns), but I'm not that interested in projectile
> > > weaponry.
> > >
> > So? You don't have to be.
>
> Good, every little bit helps. (Ladies, I'm not a gun nut!)
>
But then neither am I, I only want a gun for self defence and for defence of
others.
> > > > Well I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
> > >
> > > People like to say this, but they don't like to go through with it (I
> > > know, I'm always game for real). But you're far away from me, so
> > > maybe that's a good excuse.
> > >
> > That is just time wasting nonsence.
>
> Try me.
>
I already have, every time I reply to you.
> > > > > The point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
> > > >
> > > > No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of
> > force.
> > >
> > > You have one yourself (self-defense).
> >
> > That is force in retaliation to force, it is by no means the initiation
of
> > force.
> > Nice try though, I mean only a hundred other people have tried that one
and
> > been burned by the inescapeable logic of self defence and the initiation
of
> > force.
>
> There's no such thing as inescapable logic.
Actually there is, logic that can not be denied. That is what inescapeable
logic means, it may not be literally true but then logic isn't an acutal
object so the term inescapeable can not mean it's literal meaning can it?
> That's something else.
> Trust me.
>
Why? You lie so often.
> > > > I am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond
to
> > them.
> > >
> > > I will not do so following this post.
> >
> > Good.
>
> Changed my mind, actually. I haven't been enjoying this the whole
> time, but sometimes you really shouldn't stop when you want to.
>
Good.
True, but then again we were not discussing anything even remotely connected
to that fact. So it means that it is totally irrelevant and as such my
statement above (Not in the way you needd it to for me to be wrong) is
utterly true.
Now i ask again, are you feeling stupid?
> > > Am I feeling stupid about this? Not at all.
> > >
> > It's still irrelevant.
>
> Tell me about it.
>
The man's condition as starving nor the rolling boulder were caused by me
nor anyone directly associated with me (In a way that would trigger Joint
and several liability), therefore as I stated from the beginning Joint and
several liability is totally irrelevant to our discussion. Given that fact;
I do not have to act to prevent, alleviate, or comensate for peril I did not
cause.
The End.
Again we see you lost and this time we have proof positive that you are not
above obfuscation, irrelvancies, or outright bald faced lies.
> > > > > As far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in
> > Middle
> > > > > English. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and
it
> > > > > might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a
particularly
> > > > > "originary" view of the English people.
> > > > >
> > > > Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I see what this is about. Good riddance to *good* rubbish, good
> > > rubbish.
> > >
> > Fact is according to common law i do not have to help someone in peril
if I
> > did not cause that peril
>
> No, if you had foreknowledge (and lord, you have knowledge enough) of
> the possibility of harm and are benefitting either from cutting
> corners on safety measures or *the harm itself*, there's a *very*
> genuine legal question about culpability even if you refrained from
> acting.
Ohh so you mean if by my action (cutting corners or safety measures) I am
causing peril then i must act, then yes I totally agree. But one must ask
how that is relevant to my statement that if I did not cause the peril I am
not responsible?
Nor do I see how it refutes your statement "I can't be responsible for
things I didn't do."
> Anything else is a story people tell themselves.
I agree, you are responsible for your actions
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fc3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > >
> > > > Not at all, I have conversed, you simply ignore it.
> > >
> > > This is more effort than I would ordinarily expend on such a
> > > conversation, and yet I am indeed not being credited for it.
> > >
> > Because the effort you expended did not have any results.
>
> You don't know that, although on average that would be a *good*
> outcome.
>
> > > > > "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to
say.
> > > > > It's really pretty sinister.
> > > > >
> > > > What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for
a
> > > > change.
> > >
> > > That's relevant to me. You become more imperious by the day.
> > >
> > Well it isn't relevant to our conversation.
>
> Tell me about it; or rather, don't, because that would be dictating,
> not conversing.
>
Are you on drugs?
> > > > It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, they didn't let me in on "the point" so I tend to spend
> > > time making my own.
> > >
> > Whatever
>
> Thank you, that's actually relatively gracious.
>
I think you must be, probably very powerful ones with huge names; names you
would need a few hours to pronounce properly.
> > > > > That's a libelous comment;
> > > >
> > > > No it is not.
> > >
> > > Yes it is. I'm not a thief, and saying so could negatively affect my
> > > employability.
> >
> > You are a thief and too bad.
>
> Let me put it like this: if you were Michael Powell from the FCC, I'd
> be suing because once I dialed their phone number a lawyer would be
> holding my hand down to do all the necessary paperwork. Stuart
> Hawkins gets off the hook, because he's a regular Joe from NZ with no
> very good idea of how things work in a capitalist system.
>
I am a student of economics and as such I know how things work in a
capitalist system, I can also tell you America is not a capitalist system.
> > > I haven't called you a highwayman, although at times
> > > I've been tempted to suggest it, for that reason.
> > >
> > For what reason? Stating the truth?
>
> No, that's not the impression I have.
>
Well that might be because of all those drugs with the big names.
> > > > > which you rather clearly
> > > > > do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not;
no
> > more
> > > > > of that at all. I mean it.
> > > > >
> > > > You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
> > >
> > > Wow, you do know me pretty well (I usually let comments like that
> > > slide).
> > >
> > Well the truth should be left to slide.
>
> If that's the way you feel, I'll take my stands and take my chances.
> That doesn't appear to be the way you feel.
>
Again with wasting my time, why on earth do you do that?
> > > > A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in
> > short it
> > > > would not tax.
> > > > Now answer the question.
> > > > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep
it
> > and
> > > > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
> > disobey,
> > > > so now tell me how that is not theft?
> > >
> > > Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's the
> > > government; and in both our countries the government is democratic.
> >
> > Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
>
> Well, then there are a lot of people like me.
Unfortunately that is true.
> You like truths a lot, but you don't seem to like extrapolating
consequences from them
> (enough). Not a mark of rationality, just a mark.
>
I extrapolate consequeces from them, I also see what should be done and the
consequences of that are quite rosy indeed.
> > > Do you have a problem with democracy?
> >
> > YES!!! Just because more people think I should give them my money than
> > disagree does not stop it being theft.
>
> Okay; I can actually even relate to this a little bit.
>
It is the truth, so only a moron would deny it.
> > > I'd say so, but I'm not you so
> > > I won't put words in your mouth.
> > >
> > Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by
Aristotle.
> >
Did hyou read the above?
> > > > If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am
wrong?
> > > > Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
> > >
> > > They're a little "roundabout", and I think people will know what I
> > > mean.
> > >
> > How is tax not theft?
> > I don't see that being roundabout.
>
> Because you accept other services from a government simply by living
> and working in a country;
Services that can easily be provided by private companies
> that doesn't give them carte blanche to do
> with you as they see fit, but it does provide a rationale for
> taxation.
>
No it does not, there are ways to supply them without violating my rigfhts
with taxes and as such these MUST be adopted.
> > > Indeed I do. The magazines were nonpolitical, if not too good: they
> > > wouldn't have hired you. So you're attempting to elide the fact that
> > > someone is qualified for a job you probably wouldn't be good at. Not
> > > too libertarian.
> > >
> > Not at all, I am saying you do not exhibit the necessary characteristics
to
> > do what you have claimed to have done.
> > I am saying that the level of writing you would have sold must be very
low.
>
> It doesn't matter; you're not an expert (frankly, you're not giving
> any evidence that you're even a competent judge of this) and the
> second comment does not align with comments offered at that time by
> people with something riding on what I was writing (their ass). The
> real matter of fact has already been decided to the contrary; and if
> you were an important person, this would be an extremely oppressive
> comment (HE'S NOT A GOOD WRITER) but I can deal with it from you.
>
Well I can only comment on what I have seen here, and let me tell you it is
very poor indeed.
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > You don't know me, and you don't seem to interpret anything I say
> > > charitably enough to win a public argument, yet you seem not to feel
> > > that either the fact or the probability militates against you
> > > pronouncing upon me.
> > >
> > I do not comment on anything about you personally, so you are wrong.
>
> That's a lie, I can't believe you're confused enough not to understand
> that you are in fact doing so.
I am not, all i am doing is saying what you believe is wrong.
> I'm really tired of you, and not
> because you've thrashed me.
>
So being thrashed does not tire you?
> > You are now just trying to be a fool, i comment only on things when I
know i
> > am right. In so far as science went I would therefore only comment on
the
> > theories I understand and how relevant they are to the real world etc.
Now
> > go away and try thinking before you reply, it may help your case.
>
> I was going to let you have the last word in this thread with respect
> to philosophy of science (see how oppressive I am), but as far as I
> can tell science is just another thing you can use to control
> discussions and that's frankly stupid. Hey, it happens, but I've got
> other fish to fry.
>
Control discussions? You *ARE* on drugs!
> > > Intellectual responsibility is irrelevant to discussion of political
> > > issues? What line of work are you in, again?
> > >
> > Fish don't grow on trees.
> > Ohh sorry You must not have understood that, afterall I am doing what
you
> > did just then and changed the subject to something wilidly different.
> > Fact is you are either right to wrong, the level of information you had
only
> > matters to why you think something is correct, it does not change the
fact
> > that what you think is either right or wrong.
>
> No, that's true but it doesn't seem relevant.
That is what the conversation had degenerated into after you drew issue with
me stating such.
> Stop telling me how your judgments are facts, it's maliciously stupid.
>
They are facts or atleast should be treated as such by virtue of being the
closet to the actual explainationas we currently are capiable of (we know
this by the fact nobody has been able to refute them)
> > > I started to talk about something different and more interesting.
> > > Sorry.
> > >
> > Guess that proves I am right then doesn't it?
>
> Ask someone else.
>
Sure......He said I am right.
> > > > Yes you are.
> > >
> > > No, I'm not.
> >
> > You don't vote Libertarian do you?
>
> No, I don't; I don't like to smoke dope.
Neither do most of us.
> That's a joke (I don't care
> for it enough to spend energy on legalizing it, I have other
> problems),
But the law is an abrogation of people's rights and as such must be
abolished.
> but I don't agree with most Libertarian positions.
Too bad, you have no right to force your morality or views upon them. The
Libertarian system allows you to hold your beliefs and act upon them
accordingly, any other system does not allow Libertarians to hold their
beliefs and act upon them accordingly. That means tha Libertarian system is
neutral to you and better for them, so that means it is better overall.
> The
> small-l adjective applies more widely, though; there are libertarian
> Democrats and Republicans.
>
No there are not, there are only people calling themselves that.
> > > You are not licensed to use force against me on your
> > > say-so (the rather obvious eventual upshot of such talk).
> > >
> > I am entitled to defend myself, yes. But I have no need to do so if you
see
> > what you are doing and change your ways.
>
> Shut up, you are becoming threatening
No I am not, what I said was not a threat. It was a statement of fact, you
may change your ways and as such attacking you is unecessary.
> and if you are in New Zealand
> that is frankly weak behavior (we could have it out today if you lived
> in the Portland Metro Area).
Why bother? I have no desire to beat you into submission.
> Why don't you change your ways?
>
You mean to initiate force against peacefull people? No I think I shant be
doing that.
> > > > And here we have you avoiding the point again.
> > > > You support taxes.
> > > > You support victimless crimes
> > > > You support controls upon how I voluntarily interact with others.
> > > > The conclusion is that you can simply change your mind and leave me
> > alone by
> > > > voting libertarian, voting for anyone else means you are assisting
the
> > > > government to force the three points above onto me.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I'm not an anarchist.
> >
> > And neither am I.
> > Mine is the only system where you can have as much democracy as you
want, so
> > long as those in this democracy all agree to being bound to it. Any who
> > disagree are not bound by it.
>
> And what are they gonna do?
Live free
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Not at all, I have conversed, you simply ignore it.
> > > >
> > > > This is more effort than I would ordinarily expend on such a
> > > > conversation, and yet I am indeed not being credited for it.
> > > >
> > > Because the effort you expended did not have any results.
> >
> > You don't know that, although on average that would be a *good*
> > outcome.
> >
> I won't even bother with this particular gem of lunacy.
Is it lunacy to wonder whether this conversation has been to no point,
considering as how you and I have no idea who has bothered, or will
bother, to consider it? It's not even fringe, sorry.
> > > > > > "He *can't* be serious" is all Facts and Logic *allow* anyone to
> say.
> > > > > > It's really pretty sinister.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What garabage Mr Rubard. Try actually saying something relevant for
> a
> > > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > That's relevant to me. You become more imperious by the day.
> > > >
> > > Well it isn't relevant to our conversation.
> >
> > Tell me about it; or rather, don't, because that would be dictating,
> > not conversing.
> >
> Are you on drugs?
No, and there's no reason to think so (there's even a stronger
correlation between being a big-l Libertarian and drug use than being
against being dictated to). That's a perfectly reasonable thing to
say, seeing as how you're not really engaging with things I say
(drawing out the meaning in various ways) but opining upon them,
apparently to great effect for some audience. I'm getting to feel
like Eleanor Barnes, baby.
> > > > > It takes time and evergy for you to avoid the point?
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry, they didn't let me in on "the point" so I tend to spend
> > > > time making my own.
> > > >
> > > Whatever
> >
> > Thank you, that's actually relatively gracious.
> >
> I think you must be, probably very powerful ones with huge names; names you
> would need a few hours to pronounce properly.
Well, last night I had a Beck's and a Heineken; I guess they have
complicated enough molecular structures to keep the chemically-minded
busy, judging on observation.
> > > > > > That's a libelous comment;
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is. I'm not a thief, and saying so could negatively affect my
> > > > employability.
> > >
> > > You are a thief and too bad.
> >
> > Let me put it like this: if you were Michael Powell from the FCC, I'd
> > be suing because once I dialed their phone number a lawyer would be
> > holding my hand down to do all the necessary paperwork. Stuart
> > Hawkins gets off the hook, because he's a regular Joe from NZ with no
> > very good idea of how things work in a capitalist system.
> >
> I am a student of economics and as such I know how things work in a
> capitalist system, I can also tell you America is not a capitalist system.
Well, America is a continent; but the US has a purer capitalist system
than any other developed country, so you're clearly aiming for
something that doesn't quite exist yet. That's no crime, just not
eminently realistic.
> > > > I haven't called you a highwayman, although at times
> > > > I've been tempted to suggest it, for that reason.
> > > >
> > > For what reason? Stating the truth?
> >
> > No, that's not the impression I have.
> >
> Well that might be because of all those drugs with the big names.
I am gathering the non-existence of these "drugs I am on at the
moment" is not much of a drawback for you. (Note: Others may gather
this, too.)
> > > > > > which you rather clearly
> > > > > > do; and if I was, I'd have a lot more stuff than I do. I'm not;
> no
> more
> > > > > > of that at all. I mean it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You are a filthy disgusting immoral theiving force initiator.
> > > >
> > > > Wow, you do know me pretty well (I usually let comments like that
> > > > slide).
> > > >
> > > Well the truth should be left to slide.
> >
> > If that's the way you feel, I'll take my stands and take my chances.
> > That doesn't appear to be the way you feel.
> >
> Again with wasting my time, why on earth do you do that?
Is the purpose of alt.politics.communism not to waste avowed
non-communist Stuart Hawkins' time? Perhaps this could be effected
more easily if you were to patronize a forum for Libertarian politics,
rather than suggesting other people not exercise their freedom of
speech lest it offend you.
> > > > > A civil society would not take what I earn with treats of force, in
> short it
> > > > > would not tax.
> > > > > Now answer the question.
> > > > > How is tax not legalised theft? I earnt the money and want to keep
> it
> and
> > > > > people like you take it from me with threats and punnishment if I
> disobey,
> > > > > so now tell me how that is not theft?
> > > >
> > > > Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's the
> > > > government; and in both our countries the government is democratic.
> > >
> > > Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
> >
> > Well, then there are a lot of people like me.
>
> Unfortunately that is true.
I'll accept the fact and the value (relativized to your person; you
are indicating a considerable bias against me, which you, Stuart
Hawkins, are entitled to).
> > You like truths a lot, but you don't seem to like extrapolating
> consequences from them
> > (enough). Not a mark of rationality, just a mark.
> >
> I extrapolate consequeces from them, I also see what should be done and the
> consequences of that are quite rosy indeed.
What should be done seems to float free of particular matters of fact
in a somewhat "unbusinesslike" fashion.
> > > > I'd say so, but I'm not you so
> > > > I won't put words in your mouth.
> > > >
> > > Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by
> Aristotle.
> > >
> Did hyou read the above?
Yes, it's true but he's not really your man; he was in favor of
slavery, and consider these quotes below.
Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties
of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under
some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but
not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called
government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are
given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue
who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer.
The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one,
or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest;
but governments which rule with a view to the private interest,
whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.
Spinoza, on the other hand, identifies (a rather pure) democracy as
the *best* system of government and I like his style a little better.
> > > > > If that is the case why haven't you been able to tell me why I am
> wrong?
> > > > > Why have you been unable to answer my questions?
> > > >
> > > > They're a little "roundabout", and I think people will know what I
> > > > mean.
> > > >
> > > How is tax not theft?
> > > I don't see that being roundabout.
> >
> > Because you accept other services from a government simply by living
> > and working in a country;
>
> Services that can easily be provided by private companies
See above.
> > that doesn't give them carte blanche to do
> > with you as they see fit, but it does provide a rationale for
> > taxation.
> >
> No it does not, there are ways to supply them without violating my rigfhts
> with taxes and as such these MUST be adopted.
Well, why don't you go tell an elected official about that?
> > > > Indeed I do. The magazines were nonpolitical, if not too good: they
> > > > wouldn't have hired you. So you're attempting to elide the fact that
> > > > someone is qualified for a job you probably wouldn't be good at. Not
> > > > too libertarian.
> > > >
> > > Not at all, I am saying you do not exhibit the necessary characteristics
> to
> > > do what you have claimed to have done.
> > > I am saying that the level of writing you would have sold must be very
> low.
> >
> > It doesn't matter; you're not an expert (frankly, you're not giving
> > any evidence that you're even a competent judge of this) and the
> > second comment does not align with comments offered at that time by
> > people with something riding on what I was writing (their ass). The
> > real matter of fact has already been decided to the contrary; and if
> > you were an important person, this would be an extremely oppressive
> > comment (HE'S NOT A GOOD WRITER) but I can deal with it from you.
> >
> Well I can only comment on what I have seen here, and let me tell you it is
> very poor indeed.
You're entitled to your opinion (and telling it to others, which I can
understand your enthusiasm for): I'm just telling you it's rather
non-standard.
> > > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > You don't know me, and you don't seem to interpret anything I say
> > > > charitably enough to win a public argument, yet you seem not to feel
> > > > that either the fact or the probability militates against you
> > > > pronouncing upon me.
> > > >
> > > I do not comment on anything about you personally, so you are wrong.
> >
> > That's a lie, I can't believe you're confused enough not to understand
> > that you are in fact doing so.
>
> I am not, all i am doing is saying what you believe is wrong.
You've said much more than that, actually, it's plain in your
messages.
> > I'm really tired of you, and not
> > because you've thrashed me.
> >
> So being thrashed does not tire you?
To be frank, it's been a long time since I've been soundly defeated in
argument, and *that* doesn't bother me much at all.
> > > You are now just trying to be a fool, i comment only on things when I
> know i
> > > am right. In so far as science went I would therefore only comment on
> the
> > > theories I understand and how relevant they are to the real world etc.
> Now
> > > go away and try thinking before you reply, it may help your case.
> >
> > I was going to let you have the last word in this thread with respect
> > to philosophy of science (see how oppressive I am), but as far as I
> > can tell science is just another thing you can use to control
> > discussions and that's frankly stupid. Hey, it happens, but I've got
> > other fish to fry.
> >
> Control discussions? You *ARE* on drugs!
You're telling a bunch of people who don't want to hear it all about
your views, and personally attacking them (this comment obviously
doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs) when they don't get
excited. It's a measure of control; we have other things to (civilly)
discuss. That wouldn't necessarily be bad if you were aware of it,
but it's no service.
> > No, I don't; I don't like to smoke dope.
>
> Neither do most of us.
That's a pretty piece of quantification; but I don't have a problem
with marijuana per se, I just think there are more important things in
the world.
> > That's a joke (I don't care
> > for it enough to spend energy on legalizing it, I have other
> > problems),
>
> But the law is an abrogation of people's rights and as such must be
> abolished.
Prove it by them, I didn't make that law; I don't care too much about
abolishing it, either.
> Too bad, you have no right to force your morality or views upon them. The
> Libertarian system allows you to hold your beliefs and act upon them
> accordingly, any other system does not allow Libertarians to hold their
> beliefs and act upon them accordingly. That means tha Libertarian system is
> neutral to you and better for them, so that means it is better overall.
Well, Mr. Hawkins, we here do not want to espouse big-l Libertarian
views, nor not be assessed the libertarian views we do have. Can it
be better away from us? That'd be proof you mean what you say.
> > The
> > small-l adjective applies more widely, though; there are libertarian
> > Democrats and Republicans.
> >
> No there are not, there are only people calling themselves that.
This is another measure of control; you're trying to tell people what
they can and can't say (whether you're right or not). I can can think
of policies one could reasonably evaluate in that way coming from both
parties, as well as others.
> > > > You are not licensed to use force against me on your
> > > > say-so (the rather obvious eventual upshot of such talk).
> > > >
> > > I am entitled to defend myself, yes. But I have no need to do so if you
> see
> > > what you are doing and change your ways.
> >
> > Shut up, you are becoming threatening
>
> No I am not, what I said was not a threat. It was a statement of fact, you
> may change your ways and as such attacking you is unecessary.
What if I don't change my ways and continue posting on-topic here?
> > and if you are in New Zealand
> > that is frankly weak behavior (we could have it out today if you lived
> > in the Portland Metro Area).
>
> Why bother? I have no desire to beat you into submission.
It would show you weren't drawing something out for your own benefit
(representing yourself as a credible threat without "feeling the need"
to walk the walk, and deriving charismatic authority from this). As
for the latter, never has happened for various reasons (meekness not
being among them).
> > Why don't you change your ways?
> >
> You mean to initiate force against peacefull people? No I think I shant be
> doing that.
Okay, that's great, I completely approve; I'm just saying you
(legally) have to take people at their word on that one, not say
they're taking away your freedom as a pretext for aggression of your
own (you can talk about that all you want, though, I'd just prefer not
to talk about it with you because we obviously don't see eye-to-eye).
Jeff Rubard
> "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:qr6wb.10644$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:740acfc5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at
> particular
> > > > > statement or question because it was self congratulatory.
> > > > >
> > > No answer again
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm not spending all my time thinking about this thread.
> > *Yet*, *Yet*.
> >
> Your reason for not answering the question has been proven to be a lie,
> therefore you have no reason to not have answered it.
No, I'm seriously not thinking about this all the time, I have lots of
other things to do and even manage to do some of them; but your
rhetoric is intemperate and frankly a little scary, so I spend more
time thinking about this thread than I want to.
> > > > No, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
> > > > of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
> > > > meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
> > > > I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
> > > > or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
> > > >
> > > Your meaning would be unchanged and the bad sentence structure would
> still
> > > be bad.
> >
> > Oh no, it's an undercover phrase structure grammarian!
> >
> When your meaning is as obfuscated as yours has been, it becomes important
> to correct these things.
Well, maybe I'm not doing all the obfuscation. But I take
responsibility for things I've said and done (including their
situation-appropriateness construed very widely, i.e. how my
statements make other people feel), and if there's some point of mine
that other people feel is unclear they're invited to request
clarification, rather than rest upon your pronunciamentos.
> > > > Yes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
> > > > "propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
> > > > family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
> > > > "tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
> > > > views.
> > > >
> > > well saying they are wrong is simple, they are.
> >
> > That's not the way most people think about what other people say, and
> > for good reasons.
> >
> What good reason? In reality wither their opinions are right or wrong. If
> two people think different things about the same topic, then only one may be
> right and the other by definition is wrong. Now if these two people were to
> discuss why they are right or wrong the one that actually mananges to make
> points that can not be refuted by the other and whos points can refute said
> others points, is extremely likely to be the one who is correct.
That's not true; people have different tastes, for example, and
nobody's ever been able to think of a good reason for them not to.
(At least when you weren't around.)
> > > > > If i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will
> not.
> > > >
> > > > I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
> > > >
> > > I do not drink alcohol
> >
> > Well, that makes it easy. I don't drive; that makes it easy, too.
> >
> Then you are disadvantaged then aren't you.
Yes, I am currently very poor (formerly getting by, and before that
not moneyed), but a consequence of never having driven is never having
driven drunk. In other words, not being of independent means is a
form of discipline, of which being a wage-worker is a more *tempered*
kind, and one which society in general does benefit from ("FROMers" or
whatever be damned).
> > > > > And?
> > > >
> > > > Infrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
> > > >
> > > Sell the infrastructure, it does not fit the definition of a public good
> and
> > > as sch is more efficiently controled by private ownership
> >
> > On whose authority should we alienate public property, such that it
> > can be "efficiently controlled" by a special interest?
>
> By authority of reasons application to the real world. In doing so we
> discover economics and economics tells us that government should only
> provide public goods (those that are non-rival and non-excludeable), of
> which the only two identified for government supply are the police (law) and
> the army (Air force, navy, etc)
Governments have traditionally (since Aristotle's time) provided more
public goods than that; you'd have to think of a really good reason
for those to be the only public goods. I actually kind of like the
idea of marking the police as one such, seeing as how private and
quasi-private security forces have multiplied in recent years; and the
armed forces clearly are Nobody's Baby, but I'm kind of partial to
roads and utilities, and the government gets them for you wholesale
(it's *demonstrated* time and again that private services in such
areas are more expensive, if in some respects better).
> > That's a kind
> > of "takings" too.
> >
> No it is not, tell me how it is taking by selling the products of theft on
> the open market for the highest price possible and seeing as returning the
> funds to their rightful owners is IMPOSSIBLE using that money to supply
> public goods for all eternty without taxing ANYONE?
I'm not answering this because it's patently unrealistic. "Takings"
is well-developed in the US (and in private cases too), and
demonstrably legal ("eminent domain") under many conditions, but it
can be a legal quagmire and doesn't generate that much money. I don't
see how privatization is fundamentally different, except in the
"direction of benefit" (taking from the commonweal to benefit a
corporation, who we are told will pass the savings on to others).
> > > > That's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
> > > > for it with taxes.
> > > >
> > > Is it built? Yes
> > > Does it need to be built by taxes? No, private companies would if build
> it
> > > if it was needed.
> >
> > Well, they'd build it if the technology was already available or could
> > be cheaply and easily developed. Otherwise it might never happen,
> > like the moon landings and maybe even the Internet.
> >
> Says you? So what proof do you have of this anyway? None? I thought so.
> Everything with a potential for profit would be funded and researched, and
> in a free market it would be better funded. If you think otherwise just look
> at the human genome project, it was supposed to take untill the year 3000+
> when government was doing it and it was on track too. Then they turned it
> over to private companies and BAM fininshed in one year, despite the fact it
> was dozens of times more complicated then those making the predictions
> realised.
Prove me wrong, build a Saturn-V in your garage. But the consequence
of the HGP being turned over to private firms is that large parts of
our knowledge of human genetic material, and in some places the
genetic material itself (?!), are the intellectual property of those
private firms. Maybe this makes you feel good, I don't know.
> The only one of the two items you mentioned that might possibly not ahve
> occured is the moon landing and that is because it has done nothing to help
> anyone in any way, the space project would be going along swimmingly but
> landing on the moon might have been put on the back burner for a while.
Oh come on, what about Tang? There's never been any evidence that
defense research is not a wonderful thing.
> > > > You directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
> > > > be usable.
> > > >
> > > I pay what is necessary for a private company to allow me access. I pay
> what
> > > little cost I impose to the system. It is a subject of economics,
> something
> > > I have proven you do not understand.
> >
> > That's not the only cost to you being on the Internet, and I'm not
> > even being funny.
> >
> That has been disproven, if it were true the company would not allow me
> access as they would then be operating at a loss.
Well, your ISP relies on a backbone, which connects you to services,
etc. etc.
> > > > > The crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
> > > >
> > > > My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
> > > > don't think too far beyond that.
> > > >
> > > They don't vote Libertarian, therefore they vote for my money. Try to
> skirt
> > > round it all you want but the fact remains if you vote for anyoen else
> then
> > > you are voting for my money.
> >
> > Well, they're pretty far away in a different country; I don't see why
> > you should be concerned.
> >
> Hitler killed Jews in Europe, that was pretty far away but I still would
> have decried it.
> The Rusian Commies killed Cossacks in Europe, that was pretty far away but I
> still would have decried it.
In the past, Cossacks and Jews were not generally connected (in
speech), but this was before the maudlin quasi-Niemoller genre became
popular (and I haven't seen it for a while, so I'm actually even a
little enthused).
> > > > > > The US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
> > > > > > taxation, that's not a communist thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be
> left
> > > > > untaxed.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it's important.
> > > >
> > > So you can violate my rights if you think it is important?
> > > Interesting.
> >
> > I can't violate your rights;
>
> Yes you can, it is very simple all you need to do is vote for someone other
> than the Libertarians.
Wow, so exercising my right to vote for whomever I want to would
violate your rights? Now *those* are some rights.
> 1. Immigration laws, I have the right to go where I choose. Seeing that is
> the case taxation etc are a violation of my rights.
> 2. Trade restrictions, I have the right to trade with whomever I wish under
> whatever conditions both I and whom I am trading with find agreeable.
> 3. International policy, I have the right to be left alone and so lonmg as
> governments send troops around and expect other countried to follow suit, my
> right is being trampelled. I do have to pay for the NZ troops in Afganistan
> and Iraq you know.
Take it up with your government.
> > but they
> > can "redefine" their defense and support of those rights (pending
> > judicial approval, of course).
> >
> No they can not, they may have the power to do that but they do not have the
> right.
See above.
> > NDAs limit your degrees of freedom in action
>
> Yes but you agreed to be limited so it is not an act of force.
That's true, like voting for another party; and maybe you think of us
here as like an NDA in reverse.
> > (and if you don't think
> > so, you don't understand what you're doing, and "ignorance of the law
> > is no excuse" is a hoary statement of Anglophone law).
>
> "The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
> limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
> valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up."
> I think I say in there that your freedom is limited by the agreement but
> that limitation is self imposed.
> The company does not limit your freedom, you do. It is trading, you give up
> something for something you want.
Right, but what you do or don't consider force doesn't determine the
extent of the law (hundreds of years old, this precept), and you might
not want to try some of your arguments on a judge.
> > Is this
> > onerous? Not really, but I feel the same way about taxes.
> >
> Who cares what you feel?
Well, some people sometimes, not too many and not all the time. The
way you feel about things is clearly more important.
> > Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
> > don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
> > about my life.
> >
> You said they enterd your house without permission and forced you to listen
> to them and then clap when they had finished, that is an extremely violent
> criminal action.
That would be loopy, that's not what I said (you're reading a text for
maximum incomphrensibility, to create what computer people call FUD --
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). All of that could possibly occur to
someone (and that's true however improbable it is), but I personally
don't clap very readily, and forcing someone to listen to you can be
criminal (but isn't extremely violent, or tending towards violence, in
absence of express or implied threats).
> > > > I could have an
> > > > executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
> > > > about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
> > > > else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
> > > > other kind of trip.
> > > >
> > > The probility of that being true is zero, therefore I can say it didn't
> > > happen.
> >
> > Firstly, you're never justified in assigning a probability of zero to
> > an event which does not violate the laws of physics
>
> Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates stealing
> candy from a baby.
> Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me caring at all for
> someone with no money.
> Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me Bungy jumping.
> Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to you winning a discussion
> of economics or philosophy with me.
Bill Gates is not an object of the laws of physics, his body (which is
capable of doing that) is. As a person, he wouldn't, but that's
beside the point. Caring is not a "basic action", it can take many
forms but as you not every action can be reasonably construed as
compassionate. You could be forced to Bungee-jump (a dangerous
proposition, you're relatively sane) at gunpoint, and I expect you
would (it would be reasonable). You are correct in the last case: I
have a degree in philosophy, currently write things vaguely connected
to that degree, and I can tell you philosophical discussion is not a
matter of winning or losing if it goes correctly.
> > (biology be
> > damned, even).
>
> Why after all you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates being the
> father of Tiger Woods with biology.
Why's that?
> > Well, I kinda think/hope so, actually; but you're really fucking up on
> > syntactic/proof-theoretic issues so I'm not too concerned right now.
> > And a way you can coerce people is by bothering them when they're
> > trying to do other things, rich man or no; it's actually a pretty
> > street thing to do, but less onerous from panhandlers who can't get
> > back at you for not letting them rip you off (in quite so many ways).
> > (Do I have to prove such a thing occurred? No, actually.)
> >
> Irrelevant, all of that is nonsence. you made the claim that rich men forced
> you to listen to them while in your homen and that they made you clap after
> they finished. You MUST prove this occured, failure to do so is proof that
> you lied.
I didn't make that claim, that would be ludicrous (and you're
borderline libelous again). Furthermore, failure to prove a point is
not tantamount to proof of a lie, occasionally much to my chagrin (I'm
big into proving things to people that really want to have them proved
to their satisfaction, and appreciate this relatively rare attitude in
others).
> > > It is true in theory and practice. Reason applied to the same facts will
> > > always mean the same result.
> >
> > That's not borne out by the history of science;
>
> Yes it is, science proves my position quite well.
That's funny, I don't actually have anything to say (this comment of
yours expresses, shall we say, a rather non-conformist view).
> > > > > No it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't
> higher
> > > > > courts over rule the verdict.
> > > >
> > > > Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
> > > > went over your head :)
> > > >
> > > Precident is always followed by judges and that is the end of this.
> >
> > Precedent is followed and made by judges, and there ain't no "i" in
> > it. That's a precedent most people follow, which is the end of my
> > respect for your understanding of the law.
> >
> Ohh so mispelling removes the fact I am right? Interesting.
It demonstrates an understanding of custom, which is not beside the
point in terms of the common law. Or rather, repeatedly misspelling a
word I expect you have the proper command of demonstrates a disregard
for custom which is *most decidedly* not beside the point in terms of
common law.
> > I don't understand this comment, the law is not for fooling (rather
> > strictly circumscribes it, in fact).
> >
> Lawsuits are for making sure suppliers prevent maggots etc.
That's just right.
> > products were adulterated with other things in the 19th century,
> > before regulation.
> >
> regulation is irrelevant, common law is enough.
What is the distinction?
> > Oh, so you're the arbiter of right reason, too?
>
> right reason? No.
> Reason? Well reason needs no arbiter but reason.
I'm actually kind of enthused by this comment.
> > Wow, I had no idea
> > who I was talking to.
> >
> Neither did I, I now see the Tick is real and still needing to be returned
> to where he came from.
I'm not a cartoon superhero, even if I am kind of funny sometimes.
> > > > > No I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am
> right
> and
> > > > > you are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
> > > >
> > > No it is a matter of fact. A person whon uses ciizens arrest is a
> vigilante.
> >
> > No.
>
> Deny it all you want, it just means you are wrong.
Vigilantes take the law into their own hands, people who make
citizen's arrests deliver you into the hands of the law; and if the
law determines there's no problem nothing happens and the citizen
rests assured, whereas vigilantism doesn't have any boundaries.
> > There's no such thing as inescapable logic.
>
> Actually there is, logic that can not be denied. That is what inescapeable
> logic means, it may not be literally true but then logic isn't an acutal
> object so the term inescapeable can not mean it's literal meaning can it?
There's really not, I'm sorry; it's pretty strange, but there are a
lot of different logical systems, none of which is clearly more
"rational" than others for every purpose.
> > That's something else.
> > Trust me.
> >
> Why? You lie so often.
That's not true, I'm a very truthful person (a great deal of what I
say cannot be expected to directly benefit me, and a fair portion of
it cannot be expected to ever benefit me; and there's no call to
repeatedly call me a liar, because if I was initially lying I'd tell
you that).
> > No, if you're associated with somebody concerning a business project
> > and they do something bad, you can be held responsible even if you
> > didn't approve or "didn't know". Sorry, ask any lawyer.
> >
> True, but then again we were not discussing anything even remotely connected
> to that fact. So it means that it is totally irrelevant and as such my
> statement above (Not in the way you needd it to for me to be wrong) is
> utterly true.
> Now i ask again, are you feeling stupid?
No.
> The man's condition as starving nor the rolling boulder were caused by me
> nor anyone directly associated with me (In a way that would trigger Joint
> and several liability), therefore as I stated from the beginning Joint and
> several liability is totally irrelevant to our discussion. Given that fact;
> I do not have to act to prevent, alleviate, or comensate for peril I did not
> cause.
> The End.
The End of a fanciful rolling-boulder scenario, in real life things
are not so clear-cut (nor is the decision concerning liability yours).
> > No, if you had foreknowledge (and lord, you have knowledge enough) of
> > the possibility of harm and are benefitting either from cutting
> > corners on safety measures or *the harm itself*, there's a *very*
> > genuine legal question about culpability even if you refrained from
> > acting.
>
> Ohh so you mean if by my action (cutting corners or safety measures) I am
> causing peril then i must act, then yes I totally agree. But one must ask
> how that is relevant to my statement that if I did not cause the peril I am
> not responsible?
> Nor do I see how it refutes your statement "I can't be responsible for
> things I didn't do."
It doesn't, we are finally in agreement about something.
> > Anything else is a story people tell themselves.
>
> I agree, you are responsible for your actions
That's right, but I am not responsible for every construal of said
actions; if you say I'm a liar, that doesn't make it so, and maybe I'd
rather do something else than flick such comments off me or cope with
their consequences.
Jeff Rubard
Stuart Hawkins
"Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3fc7...@clear.net.nz>...
> > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fc3...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<3fc1...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jeffr...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:hI5wb.10607$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > > Stuart Hawkins wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Jeff Rubard" <jru...@opensentence.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:740acfc5.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>"Stuart Hawkins" <stu...@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > news:<3fbe...@clear.net.nz>...
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > You don't know that, although on average that would be a *good*
> > > outcome.
> > >
> > I won't even bother with this particular gem of lunacy.
>
> Is it lunacy to wonder whether this conversation has been to no point,
> considering as how you and I have no idea who has bothered, or will
> bother, to consider it? It's not even fringe, sorry.
>
> > > Tell me about it; or rather, don't, because that would be dictating,
> > > not conversing.
> > >
> > Are you on drugs?
>
> No, and there's no reason to think so (there's even a stronger
> correlation between being a big-l Libertarian and drug use than being
> against being dictated to).
Really? What do you base that on? Ideas pulled out of the air?
> That's a perfectly reasonable thing to
> say, seeing as how you're not really engaging with things I say
> (drawing out the meaning in various ways) but opining upon them,
> apparently to great effect for some audience. I'm getting to feel
> like Eleanor Barnes, baby.
>
I do not give opinions, I simple state objective fact.
> > > Thank you, that's actually relatively gracious.
> > >
> > I think you must be, probably very powerful ones with huge names; names
you
> > would need a few hours to pronounce properly.
>
> Well, last night I had a Beck's and a Heineken; I guess they have
> complicated enough molecular structures to keep the chemically-minded
> busy, judging on observation.
>
No they don't.
> > > > You are a thief and too bad.
> > >
> > > Let me put it like this: if you were Michael Powell from the FCC, I'd
> > > be suing because once I dialed their phone number a lawyer would be
> > > holding my hand down to do all the necessary paperwork. Stuart
> > > Hawkins gets off the hook, because he's a regular Joe from NZ with no
> > > very good idea of how things work in a capitalist system.
> > >
> > I am a student of economics and as such I know how things work in a
> > capitalist system, I can also tell you America is not a capitalist
system.
>
> Well, America is a continent; but the US has a purer capitalist system
> than any other developed country,
Capitalism is a singularity upon the spectrum, it is not a section of the
spectrum. Therefore you can not be more capitalist than others, you can only
be closer to capitalism than others.
> so you're clearly aiming for
> something that doesn't quite exist yet. That's no crime, just not
> eminently realistic.
>
Why not? We know that capitalism will work, the only problem is democracy
and people like you who doubt it's morality.
> > > No, that's not the impression I have.
> > >
> > Well that might be because of all those drugs with the big names.
>
> I am gathering the non-existence of these "drugs I am on at the
> moment" is not much of a drawback for you. (Note: Others may gather
> this, too.)
>
Well drugs are the only reasonable explaination for your behaviour.
> > > If that's the way you feel, I'll take my stands and take my chances.
> > > That doesn't appear to be the way you feel.
> > >
> > Again with wasting my time, why on earth do you do that?
>
> Is the purpose of alt.politics.communism not to waste avowed
> non-communist Stuart Hawkins' time?
The question was why do you do it, not why is it allowed to be done here.
> Perhaps this could be effected
> more easily if you were to patronize a forum for Libertarian politics,
> rather than suggesting other people not exercise their freedom of
> speech lest it offend you.
>
When did I try to censor you? Show me where I tried to censor you or state
that you should be consored?
Quote me or appologise.
> > > > > Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's
the
> > > > > government; and in both our countries the government is
democratic.
> > > >
> > > > Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
> > >
> > > Well, then there are a lot of people like me.
> >
> > Unfortunately that is true.
>
> I'll accept the fact and the value (relativized to your person; you
> are indicating a considerable bias against me, which you, Stuart
> Hawkins, are entitled to).
>
I have no bias, toward you or any other.
> > > You like truths a lot, but you don't seem to like extrapolating
> > consequences from them
> > > (enough). Not a mark of rationality, just a mark.
> > >
> > I extrapolate consequeces from them, I also see what should be done and
the
> > consequences of that are quite rosy indeed.
>
> What should be done seems to float free of particular matters of fact
> in a somewhat "unbusinesslike" fashion.
>
What matters of fact?
> > > > Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by
> > Aristotle.
> > > >
> > Did hyou read the above?
>
> Yes, it's true but he's not really your man; he was in favor of
> slavery, and consider these quotes below.
>
Aristotle made many errors but the bulk of his work is brilliant; hence why
many philosophers have made attempts to repair those errors. I mean take
Einstien for example, his greatest work is now considered to be fatally
flawed, it does not mean we should dismiss general relativity entirely. It
(relativity) is but a stepping stone towards the truth and Aristotle's is
the largest and most stable of such stepping stones to date.
> Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties
> of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under
> some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but
> not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called
> government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are
> given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue
> who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer.
>
> The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one,
> or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest;
> but governments which rule with a view to the private interest,
> whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.
>
> Spinoza, on the other hand, identifies (a rather pure) democracy as
> the *best* system of government and I like his style a little better.
>
Who cares? The criticisms Aristotle made are not answered by any
pro-deomcracy philosopher, and that is why their arguments are flawed.
> > > > How is tax not theft?
> > > > I don't see that being roundabout.
> > >
> > > Because you accept other services from a government simply by living
> > > and working in a country;
> >
> > Services that can easily be provided by private companies
>
> See above.
>
See what above? I see only things I have proven to be irrelevant or wrong.
> > > that doesn't give them carte blanche to do
> > > with you as they see fit, but it does provide a rationale for
> > > taxation.
> > >
> > No it does not, there are ways to supply them without violating my
rigfhts
> > with taxes and as such these MUST be adopted.
>
> Well, why don't you go tell an elected official about that?
>
Brilliant, next time I am in 1940's germany I will tell Hitler to leave the
Jews alone, do you think that will work?
> > > It doesn't matter; you're not an expert (frankly, you're not giving
> > > any evidence that you're even a competent judge of this) and the
> > > second comment does not align with comments offered at that time by
> > > people with something riding on what I was writing (their ass). The
> > > real matter of fact has already been decided to the contrary; and if
> > > you were an important person, this would be an extremely oppressive
> > > comment (HE'S NOT A GOOD WRITER) but I can deal with it from you.
> > >
> > Well I can only comment on what I have seen here, and let me tell you it
is
> > very poor indeed.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion (and telling it to others, which I can
> understand your enthusiasm for): I'm just telling you it's rather
> non-standard.
>
Going on what you have presented here, when compared to the rules of
english, we see that it is not of the publishable standard.
> > > > I do not comment on anything about you personally, so you are wrong.
> > >
> > > That's a lie, I can't believe you're confused enough not to understand
> > > that you are in fact doing so.
> >
> > I am not, all i am doing is saying what you believe is wrong.
>
> You've said much more than that, actually, it's plain in your
> messages.
>
Ohh so you think I am saying something more than I am actually saying?
No wonder you think you have answered my questions and points.
> > > I'm really tired of you, and not
> > > because you've thrashed me.
> > >
> > So being thrashed does not tire you?
>
> To be frank, it's been a long time since I've been soundly defeated in
> argument, and *that* doesn't bother me much at all.
>
So you consider the last time I replied to you to be a long time ago then?
> > > I was going to let you have the last word in this thread with respect
> > > to philosophy of science (see how oppressive I am), but as far as I
> > > can tell science is just another thing you can use to control
> > > discussions and that's frankly stupid. Hey, it happens, but I've got
> > > other fish to fry.
> > >
> > Control discussions? You *ARE* on drugs!
>
> You're telling a bunch of people who don't want to hear it all about
> your views, and personally attacking them (this comment obviously
> doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs) when they don't get
> excited.
That is not what I am doing, i am simply telling you the truth and I only
state that you must be on drugs as that is the only reasonable explaination
for yor posts.
> It's a measure of control; we have other things to (civilly)
> discuss. That wouldn't necessarily be bad if you were aware of it,
> but it's no service.
>
And who should it be of service to?
> > > No, I don't; I don't like to smoke dope.
> >
> > Neither do most of us.
>
> That's a pretty piece of quantification; but I don't have a problem
> with marijuana per se, I just think there are more important things in
> the world.
>
Well people should be free to make that decision for themselves.
> > > That's a joke (I don't care
> > > for it enough to spend energy on legalizing it, I have other
> > > problems),
> >
> > But the law is an abrogation of people's rights and as such must be
> > abolished.
>
> Prove it by them, I didn't make that law; I don't care too much about
> abolishing it, either.
>
I see, I'm not Jewish so who cares?
> > Too bad, you have no right to force your morality or views upon them.
The
> > Libertarian system allows you to hold your beliefs and act upon them
> > accordingly, any other system does not allow Libertarians to hold their
> > beliefs and act upon them accordingly. That means tha Libertarian system
is
> > neutral to you and better for them, so that means it is better overall.
>
> Well, Mr. Hawkins, we here do not want to espouse big-l Libertarian
> views, nor not be assessed the libertarian views we do have. Can it
> be better away from us? That'd be proof you mean what you say.
>
You do not have to read my posts, therefore anything you say about not
making them is totally irrelevant.
> > > The
> > > small-l adjective applies more widely, though; there are libertarian
> > > Democrats and Republicans.
> > >
> > No there are not, there are only people calling themselves that.
>
> This is another measure of control; you're trying to tell people what
> they can and can't say (whether you're right or not).
Just because someone says they are a horse or a small piece of stone, it
does not mean that they are. I do not say they should not call themselves
such, I just say that the word is misused and totally inaccurate
> I can can think
> of policies one could reasonably evaluate in that way coming from both
> parties, as well as others.
>
Well then your criteria are faulty.
> > > Shut up, you are becoming threatening
> >
> > No I am not, what I said was not a threat. It was a statement of fact,
you
> > may change your ways and as such attacking you is unecessary.
>
> What if I don't change my ways and continue posting on-topic here?
>
Nothing, posting here is not an act of force.
> > > and if you are in New Zealand
> > > that is frankly weak behavior (we could have it out today if you lived
> > > in the Portland Metro Area).
> >
> > Why bother? I have no desire to beat you into submission.
>
> It would show you weren't drawing something out for your own benefit
> (representing yourself as a credible threat without "feeling the need"
> to walk the walk, and deriving charismatic authority from this). As
> for the latter, never has happened for various reasons (meekness not
> being among them).
>
I doubt you are physically impressive but I also add that no matter the
reality you would not stand a chance against me.
> > > Why don't you change your ways?
> > >
> > You mean to initiate force against peacefull people? No I think I shant
be
> > doing that.
>
> Okay, that's great, I completely approve; I'm just saying you
> (legally) have to take people at their word on that one, not say
> they're taking away your freedom as a pretext for aggression of your
> own (you can talk about that all you want, though, I'd just prefer not
> to talk about it with you because we obviously don't see eye-to-eye).
Someone using force against yo deserves force used in retaliation
Jeff Rubard
No, that's not so, whatever it is you think. You and I do not have an
"I-thou" relationship, and we are conducting this conversation in a
public forum; in fact, acting as though this were "man-to-man" would
be "idiocy" in the original sense of the word.
> > > > Tell me about it; or rather, don't, because that would be dictating,
> > > > not conversing.
> > > >
> > > Are you on drugs?
> >
> > No, and there's no reason to think so (there's even a stronger
> > correlation between being a big-l Libertarian and drug use than being
> > against being dictated to).
>
> Really? What do you base that on? Ideas pulled out of the air?
That's based on empirical observation; the US Libertarian Party is
none too unified (imagine that), but legalization of marijuana and
other drugs is one of its most "broadly distributed" policy
initiatives, and this is quite often linked to open admission of drug
use (rather admirably, in my opinion).
> > That's a perfectly reasonable thing to
> > say, seeing as how you're not really engaging with things I say
> > (drawing out the meaning in various ways) but opining upon them,
> > apparently to great effect for some audience. I'm getting to feel
> > like Eleanor Barnes, baby.
> >
> I do not give opinions, I simple state objective fact.
That's not true, politics always involves opinion.
> > > > Thank you, that's actually relatively gracious.
> > > >
> > > I think you must be, probably very powerful ones with huge names; names
> you
> > > would need a few hours to pronounce properly.
> >
> > Well, last night I had a Beck's and a Heineken; I guess they have
> > complicated enough molecular structures to keep the chemically-minded
> > busy, judging on observation.
> >
> No they don't.
That's a joke, the chemists I've known liked their drink fine. In
fact, ethanol does not have a very complicated molecular structure,
but as such it creates problems for a rather fanciful drug heuristic
proposed by a biochemist in a Neal Stephenson novel and adopted by
many "netizens" (the fewer atoms, the safer the drug).
> > > > > You are a thief and too bad.
> > > >
> > > > Let me put it like this: if you were Michael Powell from the FCC, I'd
> > > > be suing because once I dialed their phone number a lawyer would be
> > > > holding my hand down to do all the necessary paperwork. Stuart
> > > > Hawkins gets off the hook, because he's a regular Joe from NZ with no
> > > > very good idea of how things work in a capitalist system.
> > > >
> > > I am a student of economics and as such I know how things work in a
> > > capitalist system, I can also tell you America is not a capitalist
> system.
> >
> > Well, America is a continent; but the US has a purer capitalist system
> > than any other developed country,
>
> Capitalism is a singularity upon the spectrum, it is not a section of the
> spectrum. Therefore you can not be more capitalist than others, you can only
> be closer to capitalism than others.
"Singularity" is a cool word, but if capitalism is a singularity it's
the one (at least) the modern era has operated within (on any common
understanding of economics, including Marxist views); in my
experience, the charge of "Statism" is a cheap rejoinder offered by
people who want to be "patted on the back" for their support of
corporations, or something similar.
> > so you're clearly aiming for
> > something that doesn't quite exist yet. That's no crime, just not
> > eminently realistic.
> >
> Why not? We know that capitalism will work, the only problem is democracy
> and people like you who doubt it's morality.
What should we do with such people? Shouldn't economic reality just
automatically brush them aside? So why do you need to worry about
them at all, including for the purposes of this conversation?
> > > > No, that's not the impression I have.
> > > >
> > > Well that might be because of all those drugs with the big names.
> >
> > I am gathering the non-existence of these "drugs I am on at the
> > moment" is not much of a drawback for you. (Note: Others may gather
> > this, too.)
> >
> Well drugs are the only reasonable explaination for your behaviour.
In a magazine that'd be libelous bullshit; what you're in effect
opting for here is the "man in the street" out (which I'm perfectly
willing to grant you).
> > > > If that's the way you feel, I'll take my stands and take my chances.
> > > > That doesn't appear to be the way you feel.
> > > >
> > > Again with wasting my time, why on earth do you do that?
> >
> > Is the purpose of alt.politics.communism not to waste avowed
> > non-communist Stuart Hawkins' time?
>
> The question was why do you do it, not why is it allowed to be done here.
The question is "Why do you care what people do here, on your own
understanding of politics and 'capitalist morality'? Why should I
have spent what by now amounts to several hours attempting to satisfy
what is now rather obviously a spurious curiosity on your part?" I
felt like doing that, but that's not a good enough reason for you, I
suspect.
> > Perhaps this could be effected
> > more easily if you were to patronize a forum for Libertarian politics,
> > rather than suggesting other people not exercise their freedom of
> > speech lest it offend you.
> >
> When did I try to censor you? Show me where I tried to censor you or state
> that you should be consored?
> Quote me or appologise.
"Suggestions" are not censorship, although they can be intimidation;
censorship is involuntary modification or suppression of printed or
artistic material. But as I can't "quote you as censoring me", or
even suggesting censorship, I cannot apologize (this is a fairly
common problem of a different character).
> > > > > > Because it's not people like me who take the money from you, it's
> the
> > > > > > government; and in both our countries the government is
> democratic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then it is you and people like you that make it happen.
> > > >
> > > > Well, then there are a lot of people like me.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately that is true.
> >
> > I'll accept the fact and the value (relativized to your person; you
> > are indicating a considerable bias against me, which you, Stuart
> > Hawkins, are entitled to).
> >
> I have no bias, toward you or any other.
That's a very bold statement; it's not true (you rather clearly have a
distaste for the frequenters of this forum), but you might grow into
it and that would be marvelous.
> > > > You like truths a lot, but you don't seem to like extrapolating
> consequences from them
> > > > (enough). Not a mark of rationality, just a mark.
> > > >
> > > I extrapolate consequeces from them, I also see what should be done and
> the
> > > consequences of that are quite rosy indeed.
> >
> > What should be done seems to float free of particular matters of fact
> > in a somewhat "unbusinesslike" fashion.
> >
> What matters of fact?
> > > > > Democracy is the second worst form of government identified by
> Aristotle.
> > > > >
> > > Did hyou read the above?
> >
> > Yes, it's true but he's not really your man; he was in favor of
> > slavery, and consider these quotes below.
> >
> Aristotle made many errors but the bulk of his work is brilliant; hence why
> many philosophers have made attempts to repair those errors. I mean take
> Einstien for example, his greatest work is now considered to be fatally
> flawed, it does not mean we should dismiss general relativity entirely. It
> (relativity) is but a stepping stone towards the truth and Aristotle's is
> the largest and most stable of such stepping stones to date.
Aristotle didn't like manual laborers; he wouldn't have liked you, he
would have thought you were unworthy of politics no matter what it was
you said. You can still admire him, but you are not going to be able
to emend his work to serve your purposes.
> > Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties
> > of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under
> > some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but
> > not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called
> > government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are
> > given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue
> > who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer.
> >
> > The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one,
> > or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest;
> > but governments which rule with a view to the private interest,
> > whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.
> >
> > Spinoza, on the other hand, identifies (a rather pure) democracy as
> > the *best* system of government and I like his style a little better.
> >
> Who cares? The criticisms Aristotle made are not answered by any
> pro-deomcracy philosopher, and that is why their arguments are flawed.
They are amply answered (the *Politics* was indeed an important and
widely-read work), and I think at times quite well.
> >
> > Well, why don't you go tell an elected official about that?
> >
> Brilliant, next time I am in 1940's germany I will tell Hitler to leave the
> Jews alone, do you think that will work?
That's something you could have done (perhaps at great cost); but are
you in 1940s Germany?
> > > > It doesn't matter; you're not an expert (frankly, you're not giving
> > > > any evidence that you're even a competent judge of this) and the
> > > > second comment does not align with comments offered at that time by
> > > > people with something riding on what I was writing (their ass). The
> > > > real matter of fact has already been decided to the contrary; and if
> > > > you were an important person, this would be an extremely oppressive
> > > > comment (HE'S NOT A GOOD WRITER) but I can deal with it from you.
> > > >
> > > Well I can only comment on what I have seen here, and let me tell you it
> is
> > > very poor indeed.
> >
> > You're entitled to your opinion (and telling it to others, which I can
> > understand your enthusiasm for): I'm just telling you it's rather
> > non-standard.
> >
> Going on what you have presented here, when compared to the rules of
> english, we see that it is not of the publishable standard.
Ahh, the royal we. I'm sorry, it doesn't really matter what you
think; I simply couldn't be bothered to provide you with references
(multiple) from professional editors, pertaining to (unsolicited)
praise of the stylistic integrity of pieces I wrote for them. In
other words, when I do not write as I please -- as I do in my free
time -- I am easy to edit.
> > To be frank, it's been a long time since I've been soundly defeated in
> > argument, and *that* doesn't bother me much at all.
> >
> So you consider the last time I replied to you to be a long time ago then?
That is quite juvenile.
> > > > I was going to let you have the last word in this thread with respect
> > > > to philosophy of science (see how oppressive I am), but as far as I
> > > > can tell science is just another thing you can use to control
> > > > discussions and that's frankly stupid. Hey, it happens, but I've got
> > > > other fish to fry.
> > > >
> > > Control discussions? You *ARE* on drugs!
> >
> > You're telling a bunch of people who don't want to hear it all about
> > your views, and personally attacking them (this comment obviously
> > doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs) when they don't get
> > excited.
>
> That is not what I am doing, i am simply telling you the truth and I only
> state that you must be on drugs as that is the only reasonable explaination
> for yor posts.
Grow up.
> > That's a pretty piece of quantification; but I don't have a problem
> > with marijuana per se, I just think there are more important things in
> > the world.
> >
> Well people should be free to make that decision for themselves.
But yet they are not under the law as it stands; and if you are
incapable of understanding that as somehow binding, you are incapable
of understanding the common law.
> > > > That's a joke (I don't care
> > > > for it enough to spend energy on legalizing it, I have other
> > > > problems),
> > >
> > > But the law is an abrogation of people's rights and as such must be
> > > abolished.
> >
> > Prove it by them, I didn't make that law; I don't care too much about
> > abolishing it, either.
> >
> I see, I'm not Jewish so who cares?
The Niemoller routine began with "the communists", because that was
where the Nazis started. I say "routine" because frankly the
(sometimes slightly expurgated) versions of such anti-Nazi sentiments
we still get a lot are schmaltzy -- to the point that someone could
slip and fall.
> > > Too bad, you have no right to force your morality or views upon them.
> The
> > > Libertarian system allows you to hold your beliefs and act upon them
> > > accordingly, any other system does not allow Libertarians to hold their
> > > beliefs and act upon them accordingly. That means tha Libertarian system
> is
> > > neutral to you and better for them, so that means it is better overall.
> >
> > Well, Mr. Hawkins, we here do not want to espouse big-l Libertarian
> > views, nor not be assessed the libertarian views we do have. Can it
> > be better away from us? That'd be proof you mean what you say.
> >
> You do not have to read my posts, therefore anything you say about not
> making them is totally irrelevant.
The first part is true, the second part is not (you're presenting
defamatory statements about me which could be damaging to my personal
interests, rather than my feelings; I'm very much entitled to take a
very serious interest).
> > > > The
> > > > small-l adjective applies more widely, though; there are libertarian
> > > > Democrats and Republicans.
> > > >
> > > No there are not, there are only people calling themselves that.
> >
> > This is another measure of control; you're trying to tell people what
> > they can and can't say (whether you're right or not).
>
> Just because someone says they are a horse or a small piece of stone, it
> does not mean that they are. I do not say they should not call themselves
> such, I just say that the word is misused and totally inaccurate
That's true, perhaps that's figurative language. I don't remember
doing that in this conversation, though.
> > I can can think
> > of policies one could reasonably evaluate in that way coming from both
> > parties, as well as others.
> >
> Well then your criteria are faulty.
Says you.
> > > > Shut up, you are becoming threatening.
> > >
> > > No I am not, what I said was not a threat. It was a statement of fact,
> you
> > > may change your ways and as such attacking you is unecessary.
> >
> > What if I don't change my ways and continue posting on-topic here?
> >
> Nothing, posting here is not an act of force.
No, but threatening someone is not an act of force, either; it
portends such an act, and sometimes none too thoroughly (the purpose
of threatening being to get what you want by putting fear into people,
without actually having to do the feared action).
> > > > and if you are in New Zealand
> > > > that is frankly weak behavior (we could have it out today if you lived
> > > > in the Portland Metro Area).
> > >
> > > Why bother? I have no desire to beat you into submission.
> >
> > It would show you weren't drawing something out for your own benefit
> > (representing yourself as a credible threat without "feeling the need"
> > to walk the walk, and deriving charismatic authority from this). As
> > for the latter, never has happened for various reasons (meekness not
> > being among them).
> >
> I doubt you are physically impressive but I also add that no matter the
> reality you would not stand a chance against me.
Actually, if you were to really thoroughly "ring the changes" on this
conversation and with me in person (I'm not too *physically* imposing,
but 300 pounds and a no-nonsense attitude hasn't been enough to bow
me) you'd be physically useless; you're just pumping yourself up, and
I have other things to do than admire your fine physique from afar.