Donnadogsoth Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 I asked you five questions and this answered none of them. I also acknowledged your deflection, so I don't think reacting with more deflection is productive as you had no expectation that it would go down. Alright, sir, here are some succinct answers to your questions: (1) Why would I need to sign a contract? (2) As long as I'm not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering, why do you want a hand in whatever I choose to do? I didn't say you had to sign it, I said to the effect of what if it existed and millions of people did sign it. Is such a social contract illegitimate or not? You will say, "It is illegitimate so long as it contains stipulations that violate the NAP, which continues to stay in effect, as a universal moral principle, regardless of what any contract says." Yes? (3) Why do you only want this for Americans? Expand the possibility across the world if you prefer. (4) Why would you want to recreate defective technology (think Chernobyl) instead of upgrading to superior technology? Suppose no one can think of any better way. Though methinks you will respond to this as you did (1) and (2). (5) How does this deflection of yours bring you closer the irreconcilability of consent and not consent? Ah, so you are saying that legitimate contracts are always within principle and never outside of principle. Do you agree? Now, I, using your voice, appeared to have answered my first question (post 34), but I am unclear on the proper resolution of my second question (post 34). Will you now deign to answer it, as I have answered your questions?
dsayers Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 I have answered your questions? Begrudgingly, with no backtracking to acknowledge your deflection. Complete with telling me what I'm going to say before I have a chance to say it. You manipulative prick If you're going to have a conversation without me, don't waste my time including me. You also haven't explained how this line of questioning brings you closer to the irreconcilability of consent and lack of consent. I didn't say you had to sign it, I said to the effect of what if it existed and millions of people did sign it. Is such a social contract illegitimate or not? You will say, "It is illegitimate so long as it contains stipulations that violate the NAP, which continues to stay in effect, as a universal moral principle, regardless of what any contract says." Yes? No. lol Imagine you had a club where one of the stipulations for entry was that you consented to being raped. Clearly rape is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights (I refuse to speak behind acryonyms to manipulative people). Therefore anybody who entered was consenting to being raped. Thus rape is not even possible within that club because consent is present and lack of consent is a requisite of rape. Therefore if PEOPLE voluntarily entered into a contract, ALL stipulations are consensual and therefore cannot simultaneously accept and reject property rights. "Social contract" is a contradiction in concepts. Been debunked for a long time. Since you've put forth shoving your hand up my ass to use me as a puppet as a standard, I reciprocate: "But what about homeowner's associations?" To which I ask: What happens when one of those homeowners dies and leaves his house to somebody else? Are the rules binding upon them? Without their consent? Expand the possibility across the world if you prefer. My preference doesn't enter into why you do anything. The question was why you did something and was meant to reveal the lack of principle in your proposition. Suppose no one can think of any better way. One needs to suppose no such thing. The question referenced superior technology, denoting its presence and availability. To consider something that is available as unavailable is only helpful when you're trying to make a conclusion stick in the face of rational refutation.
Donnadogsoth Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 Begrudgingly or not, you're not the easiest interlocutor to deal with, you know. I apologise for puppeteering you. I was merely saving time by anticipating your responses. I'm not sure what deflection you mean. I must have missed it. When you say “You also haven't explained how this line of questioning brings you closer to the irreconcilability of consent and lack of consent,” I am unsure what you mean. This Ancap business is new to me. I understand it less intricately than you do and would appreciate help in understanding it better. Your rape club example is clarifying. If I consent to death, this does not violate property rights so long as I'm not forcing anyone else to kill me. So a suicide would be consensual, within property rights, and though I wouldn't call it good, it cannot be coercively acted against, unless the would-be suicide were mentally unbalanced (e.g., paranoid schizophrenia, thinks that he will go to meet Elvis by jumping off a bridge, etc.).When you say, “Therefore if PEOPLE voluntarily entered into a contract, ALL stipulations are consensual and therefore cannot simultaneously accept and reject property rights,” this sounds reasonable. Hypothetically then people could enter into a “tax-paying liberal democracy” club that would replicate exactly what we have now, except that all stipulations are voluntarily entered into, including taxes, conscription, and the justice system of the ol' USA. Help me to understand: is this possible, if everyone is agreeing to it (or the ones who disagree simply are free to move away)? I'm not saying it would be desirable to have a State 2.0, but is it principled under the NAP? You say I would say, "But what about homeowner's associations?" and you respond, “To which I ask: What happens when one of those homeowners dies and leaves his house to somebody else? Are the rules binding upon them? Without their consent?”A homeowner's association-related house would be a house that comes with those incumbencies, so the inheriting person can accept that property with its strings, or reject it. Is that not what you meant?I wrote, “Expand the possibility across the world if you prefer,” and you said, “My preference doesn't enter into why you do anything. The question was why you did something and was meant to reveal the lack of principle in your proposition.” I think this has been addressed elsewhere by us and so is irrelevant. I wrote, “Suppose one can think of any better way,” and you said, “One needs to suppose no such thing. The question referenced superior technology, denoting its presence and availability. To consider something that is available as unavailable is only helpful when you're trying to make a conclusion stick in the face of rational refutation.” Alright, that makes sense. Now, will you kindly answer my second question from post 34? It's not enough to say the NAP will take care of it or we'll find a better way somehow. What is the actual better way when it comes to dethroning a State monopoly on power? Just competing DROs that might wage war on each other to the inverse degree of their mutual integration? I want to understand this, but would appreciate you relaxing your attitude a bit and helping me understand.
algernon Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I didn't read every reply thoroughly so excuse me if this has been brought up, but I must say - - Are Russians inherently evil for disapproving of homosexuality ? - Where did you get this from? Is it worth having an entire debate based on a false statement? You must not realize "Russia is anti gay!" conversation was Western propaganda to hurt Russia. Please read the white paper created by Brian Heiss (a gay man, matter of fact), if you care to know the truth of this matter. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files/RussianLGBTLawWhitePaper.pdf
Donnadogsoth Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I didn't read every reply thoroughly so excuse me if this has been brought up, but I must say - - Are Russians inherently evil for disapproving of homosexuality ? - Where did you get this from? Is it worth having an entire debate based on a false statement? You must not realize "Russia is anti gay!" conversation was Western propaganda to hurt Russia. Please read the white paper created by Brian Heiss (a gay man, matter of fact), if you care to know the truth of this matter. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files/RussianLGBTLawWhitePaper.pdf Good find, algernon. Yes, this demonisation of Russia is part of the Anglo-American/NATO encirclement strategy intending to neutralise Russia as a potent actor in the world and stop the BRICS flank against the Wall Street/London hegemony. I remember seeing magazine covers five+ years ago with a red filter on Putin, Putin is the new enemy, Putin is Hitler, etc.. Absolute cynical manipulation and media corruption. 2
Recommended Posts