Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
  1. #31
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wufiavelli View Post
    So you just claiming the property as your with a gun? Are you some feudal lord now?

    His example is retarded, the right to private property does not give you your own little feudal kingdom. Attempts to make it that way by claiming it as the cornerstone to freedom are little more attempts by people who have a lot to make sure they stay in power by creating a moral system which benefits them and gives them power over others, nor due to their larger wealth. It is also a moral system which does not or cares nor take into account the ability with those with greater assets to infringe on the freedom of the poorer due to their control of large swabs of property that once upon a time was a common area.
    Everything comes down to a gun. If an animal attacks you you have to use the gun. The justification given for owning said property is what matters. Who has best claim to the property is what should be looked at.

    There is no such a thing as common area. It is an oxymoron. What you refer to common area is government held territory.

    And as far as your justification for violating private property rights it is contradictory. The idea of social contract establishes a feudal state on which a stronger group dominates a weaker group. You are basically supporting the exact same thing you oppose.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Everything comes down to a gun. If an animal attacks you you have to use the gun. The justification given for owning said property is what matters. Who has best claim to the property is what should be looked at.

    There is no such a thing as common area. It is an oxymoron. What you refer to common area is government held territory.

    And as far as your justification for violating private property rights it is contradictory. The idea of social contract establishes a feudal state on which a stronger group dominates a weaker group. You are basically supporting the exact same thing you oppose.
    Your whole concept of ownership if you standing with a gun and shooting people of something randomly you claim as yours. The whole system which provides for you ownership and protection and a lift up from a horrid every man for himself existence you despise. What the hell kind of strange anarcho capitalist imaginary world do want to live in?

  3. #33
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    It's the same. You're denying my my enjoyment of that property and the profits of renting it out.
    If you're forcing squatters to pay rent, they're not denying the landlord income. Maybe postponing it unless he decides to sell the debt. Lots of legal actions (for a private citizen) would also be denying people use of their property or taking away their opportunity to make money without the consent of the owner. F ex picketing workplaces during strikes or other people's workplaces, for instance abortion clinics to the point of obstructing or discouraging other people from entering and leaving. Also it reduces the enjoyment because of the noise and in some cases fear caused.


    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    This is not a horrible police state. People generally go about their lives without a problem. What people generally run into is the seemingly arbitrary enforcement of traffic violations. To that... you could ask yourself why you were pulled over if you were going at the same speed as dozens of other vehicles around you. It's not a defacto retroactive law simply because you think you feel like you can break a law.
    When they pull people over for that, they're supposed not to f ex follow a car around secretly in order to increase the number of violations they can book them for. Also traffic violations usually only leads to the car and your person being searched at most, not your house, computers and Internet history. It's also never retroactive yet like it could be if they decide to check the cars computer system to determine you were ever in the vicinity of a crime, in an unreported accident, went the wrong way on a freeway, drove off-road illegally, didn't follow the speed limit or failed to stop at stop signs. They don't need actual retroactive laws to be able to target people for persecution when they've made everyone a lawbreaker and they get to decide how thorough they investigate the suspects past and how much of that they'll prosecute him for. With all those options in place, they could simply rely on pure chance to get people they don't like to be caught for one crime if they're only disliked for being part of a large group. If they're very important, they're likely famous or under surveillance anyway, which makes it much easier to find one crime they need to book them for dozens or thousands if IP laws are considered as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    I don't know why you think exile isn't a death sentence when a person already lacks the resources to place a deposit for their child.
    If they realize it will be a death sentence and still chose to get have child and keep it, the only way to stop them from ruining the world is by letting them die since nothing will stop them breeding kids other people will be burdened with. The other alternative would be to kill their kids outright or kidnap them to put them in a work-house. But they'd need to do it with lots of kids per parent since they' just have even more kids if they don't have to care for them themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    This is an ironic turn of events. Respect for property is needed for basic law and order... but people should be free to enjoy their free ride as they refuse to pay towards that "basic law and order" that they enjoy. Basic law and order is apparently important... but not so much that people should be compelled to contribute.
    The government needs fucking respect for law and order is what I said. If it doesn't, it's pretty much despotic. If a person doesn't, he's either a dissident, a (potential) criminal or both.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  4. #34
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wufiavelli View Post
    Your whole concept of ownership if you standing with a gun and shooting people of something randomly you claim as yours. The whole system which provides for you ownership and protection and a lift up from a horrid every man for himself existence you despise. What the hell kind of strange anarcho capitalist imaginary world do want to live in?
    Why do you insist in talking over me? You are not addressing anything I am saying. You are just arguing with a position you imagined me to take. Strawman much?
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  5. #35
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    If you're forcing squatters to pay rent, they're not denying the landlord income. Maybe postponing it unless he decides to sell the debt. Lots of legal actions (for a private citizen) would also be denying people use of their property or taking away their opportunity to make money without the consent of the owner. F ex picketing workplaces during strikes or other people's workplaces, for instance abortion clinics to the point of obstructing or discouraging other people from entering and leaving. Also it reduces the enjoyment because of the noise and in some cases fear caused.
    You can't force squatters to pay rent. The basis of your complaint is that government should not be able to force payment from you(?).

    When they pull people over for that, they're supposed not to f ex follow a car around secretly in order to increase the number of violations they can book them for. Also traffic violations usually only leads to the car and your person being searched at most, not your house, computers and Internet history. It's also never retroactive yet like it could be if they decide to check the cars computer system to determine you were ever in the vicinity of a crime, in an unreported accident, went the wrong way on a freeway, drove off-road illegally, didn't follow the speed limit or failed to stop at stop signs. They don't need actual retroactive laws to be able to target people for persecution when they've made everyone a lawbreaker and they get to decide how thorough they investigate the suspects past and how much of that they'll prosecute him for. With all those options in place, they could simply rely on pure chance to get people they don't like to be caught for one crime if they're only disliked for being part of a large group. If they're very important, they're likely famous or under surveillance anyway, which makes it much easier to find one crime they need to book them for dozens or thousands if IP laws are considered as well.
    This sounds like a description of events atypical of the United States and will assume it is not based on an experience with US police. This just sounds like a fictional hypothetical that either exists in another country or not at all.

    If they realize it will be a death sentence and still chose to get have child and keep it, the only way to stop them from ruining the world is by letting them die since nothing will stop them breeding kids other people will be burdened with. The other alternative would be to kill their kids outright or kidnap them to put them in a work-house. But they'd need to do it with lots of kids per parent since they' just have even more kids if they don't have to care for them themselves.
    How the fuck is death sentence superior to taking a portion of their assets and potentially imprisoning them? You're coming up with draconian alternatives to what is the obviously more civilized alternative of simply enforcing the law.

    The government needs fucking respect for law and order is what I said. If it doesn't, it's pretty much despotic. If a person doesn't, he's either a dissident, a (potential) criminal or both.
    This whole thing is unraveling. Why can't we just impose reasonable taxes and enforce them as we currently do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  6. #36
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    You can't force squatters to pay rent. The basis of your complaint is that government should not be able to force payment from you(?).
    I mean it as a general principle. I also think it should apply to things like breaking stuff, f ex in a store, on accident or even where the seller obscures the cost and f ex tries to extort a subscription fee for f ex ring-tones that doesn't make any sense to package as a subscription or they mislead by f ex creating ads as if they are selling the ring-tones as a product and not requiring a special interaction to start subscription. IE sending the name of the ring-tone you want, start a subscription. Not very good examples I guess.

    No-one should be able to force payment from any person. Maybe even if it's stolen goods. Taking the stuff away from them plus giving prison/fine is IMO double (or more) punishment for the same crime and therefore problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    This sounds like a description of events atypical of the United States and will assume it is not based on an experience with US police. This just sounds like a fictional hypothetical that either exists in another country or not at all.
    They always investigate when they suspect you for a single crime, and don't even try to limit themselves to investigating the actual suspect (f ex confiscating and searching for any crime all computers, cellphones and data storage in whatever apartment/house (or even data center) they get a warrant for despite it being more than one resident and it being easy to tell who is the owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    How the fuck is death sentence superior to taking a portion of their assets and potentially imprisoning them? You're coming up with draconian alternatives to what is the obviously more civilized alternative of simply enforcing the law.
    It wasn't an actual death sentence and IMO the crime of malicious or reckless breeding on the expense and detriment to society is more serious than multiple murder on a per case basis and way more common so it's the place draconian measures are most apt.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    This whole thing is unraveling. Why can't we just impose reasonable taxes and enforce them as we currently do?
    You can, but eventually your kind will be bred out of existence by Muslims or Latinos, or someone even more effective at it while having to pay much more than your fair share of taxes.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  7. #37
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    I mean it as a general principle. I also think it should apply to things like breaking stuff, f ex in a store, on accident or even where the seller obscures the cost and f ex tries to extort a subscription fee for f ex ring-tones that doesn't make any sense to package as a subscription or they mislead by f ex creating ads as if they are selling the ring-tones as a product and not requiring a special interaction to start subscription. IE sending the name of the ring-tone you want, start a subscription. Not very good examples I guess.

    No-one should be able to force payment from any person. Maybe even if it's stolen goods. Taking the stuff away from them plus giving prison/fine is IMO double (or more) punishment for the same crime and therefore problematic.
    This seems like a highly irrational version of justice. Based on what you're saying crime would be extremely safe. You either get to keep the goods and serve jail time or merely return the goods and retain freedom. It's not even a penalty if you only return them to their state before committing the crime. Based on your examples, are you trying to suppose that taxes are a trick? Like people don't know that they're going to be taxed?


    They always investigate when they suspect you for a single crime, and don't even try to limit themselves to investigating the actual suspect (f ex confiscating and searching for any crime all computers, cellphones and data storage in whatever apartment/house (or even data center) they get a warrant for despite it being more than one resident and it being easy to tell who is the owner.
    That's the nature of an investigation. It seems like you're just upset that they hold exhaustive investigations, an idea I think is funny given that the same sorts of people would ridicule them if they carefully avoided a roommate's computer and that's where the defendant had hidden all his secret stuff (whether the roommate knew or not).

    It wasn't an actual death sentence and IMO the crime of malicious or reckless breeding on the expense and detriment to society is more serious than multiple murder on a per case basis and way more common so it's the place draconian measures are most apt.
    I think you might just be kinda fucked up in the head if you think that excessive procreation is more serious than multiple murder. That would explain why you think the act of exile is somehow more tolerable than simply taking a portion of an offender's property. Suppose the person has land, is the government compelled to purchase their land from them when attempting to exile them?

    You can, but eventually your kind will be bred out of existence by Muslims or Latinos, or someone even more effective at it while having to pay much more than your fair share of taxes.
    Reproductive rates plateau based on ongoing trends. It's not something that will continue forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  8. #38
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    This seems like a highly irrational version of justice. Based on what you're saying crime would be extremely safe. You either get to keep the goods and serve jail time or merely return the goods and retain freedom. It's not even a penalty if you only return them to their state before committing the crime. Based on your examples, are you trying to suppose that taxes are a trick? Like people don't know that they're going to be taxed?
    I didn't say they could give stuff back to avoid jail. Also in practice, most people criminals would still serve jail even if giving stuff back or paying what you might be considered to owe because you often have to break other laws to get get hold of the money. F ex Breaking & entering, robbery (threat of violence), fraud, embezzlement, vandalism (car windows f ex). And this would/should be crimes even if you (voluntarily) give economic compensation.

    Didn't try to make a point about taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    That's the nature of an investigation. It seems like you're just upset that they hold exhaustive investigations, an idea I think is funny given that the same sorts of people would ridicule them if they carefully avoided a roommate's computer and that's where the defendant had hidden all his secret stuff (whether the roommate knew or not).
    The examples I was thinking about where that guy house-sitting for a friend in Canada I think, and they confiscated his laptop despite it should have been obvious he was using it and it was more than likely his private one, especially as they suspected the house-owner to have socially unacceptable crimes committed crimes with it that might be obvious to other users. I think they also found the one they were looking for. The other guy couldn't have hidden anything on his computer. The other was when they raided the data center the pirate bay had it's servers at.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    I think you might just be kinda fucked up in the head if you think that excessive procreation is more serious than multiple murder. That would explain why you think the act of exile is somehow more tolerable than simply taking a portion of an offender's property. Suppose the person has land, is the government compelled to purchase their land from them when attempting to exile them?
    No, they should retain their ability to sell it themselves privately.

    I didn't say (forced) exile was better than (forced) confiscation of their property for the person they confiscate from. I don't even think so. Edit: I sort of did, but it was only as a default punishment if they refused the other punishment (paying a deposit for their offspring, they could get a loan from the government I guess if they can't get it privately, and the other options for dealing with the kids weren't real options or not consented to by the parent(s)).

    Though it could maybe be argued that a state that uses forced exile as a punishment is better than one that confiscates property. F ex because it would have more respect for property, would have a harder time employing lots of people because of a more restrictive tax policy and it would also be unable to restrict emigration.

    Procreation is more serious than murder. Each kid born ATM takes the place of another potential kid born of other parents due to the costs associated with it carried by the public. And if they raise it poorly, it's also going to be less productive and/or more parasitic as an adult. And if it's born to parents that have lots of kids, it's more likely to have lots of kids itself. I makes perfect sense to equate it to multiple murder if you only look at reproduction as important. If you can't see that it makes sense, you likely have your mind clouded by emotion, are ignorant of evolutionary biology and/or only have a mind-centric world-view and ethics.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    Reproductive rates plateau based on ongoing trends. It's not something that will continue forever.
    It doesn't have to last more than a few hundred years at most for Europeans to be small repressed minorities in their own countries. Also Latinas are better at reproducing since they are smaller and grow up quicker. That's not something that's going to go away with cultural integration or assimilation, even if they somehow stopped breeding with Latinos altogether. Though Latin Americans wouldn't be much of a threat in terms of repression, just excessively using welfare (because they'll have more kids and less education) and suchlike.
    Last edited by Weeking; 08-23-2012 at 14:37.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  9. #39
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    I didn't say they could give stuff back to avoid jail. Also in practice, most people criminals would still serve jail even if giving stuff back or paying what you might be considered to owe because you often have to break other laws to get get hold of the money. F ex Breaking & entering, robbery (threat of violence), fraud, embezzlement, vandalism (car windows f ex). And this would/should be crimes even if you (voluntarily) give economic compensation.

    Didn't try to make a point about taxes.
    Perhaps you need to be more specific about what you mean by double penalty, then.


    The examples I was thinking about where that guy house-sitting for a friend in Canada I think, and they confiscated his laptop despite it should have been obvious he was using it and it was more than likely his private one, especially as they suspected the house-owner to have socially unacceptable crimes committed crimes with it that might be obvious to other users. I think they also found the one they were looking for. The other guy couldn't have hidden anything on his computer. The other was when they raided the data center the pirate bay had it's servers at.
    I'm not sure what your point is... that police investigate things more than you want them to?

    No, they should retain their ability to sell it themselves privately.

    I didn't say (forced) exile was better than (forced) confiscation of their property for the person they confiscate from. I don't even think so. Edit: I sort of did, but it was only as a default punishment if they refused the other punishment (paying a deposit for their offspring, they could get a loan from the government I guess if they can't get it privately, and the other options for dealing with the kids weren't real options or not consented to by the parent(s)).
    I don't see how this is a humane solution to the problem of exile, especially when exile seems less humane than simply fining and/or imprisoning offenders.

    Though it could maybe be argued that a state that uses forced exile as a punishment is better than one that confiscates property. F ex because it would have more respect for property, would have a harder time employing lots of people because of a more restrictive tax policy and it would also be unable to restrict emigration.
    But this is sort of dodging the original point of mine and other responses: the basis and EXTENT of property rights are found in the social contract.

    Procreation is more serious than murder. Each kid born ATM takes the place of another potential kid born of other parents due to the costs associated with it carried by the public. And if they raise it poorly, it's also going to be less productive and/or more parasitic as an adult. And if it's born to parents that have lots of kids, it's more likely to have lots of kids itself. I makes perfect sense to equate it to multiple murder if you only look at reproduction as important. If you can't see that it makes sense, you likely have your mind clouded by emotion, are ignorant of evolutionary biology and/or only have a mind-centric world-view and ethics.
    Well it takes a strangely narrow view of the problem. Where the loss of an array of random individuals is held as less important than the prospective gain of random array of new people. Where sure it looks bad for the balance of the state (if you assume that all the children will be worthless welfare recipients, a problem that might be because of poor welfare policy and not a problem of reproductive choice) and ignore (as far as I can see) the enjoyment of life denied to the deceased (ignoring their potential contribution to the state).

    It doesn't have to last more than a few hundred years at most for Europeans to be small repressed minorities in their own countries. Also Latinas are better at reproducing since they are smaller and grow up quicker. That's not something that's going to go away with cultural integration or assimilation, even if they somehow stopped breeding with Latinos altogether. Though Latin Americans wouldn't be much of a threat in terms of repression, just excessively using welfare (because they'll have more kids and less education) and suchlike.
    This appears to be a racial stereotype that you've expanded to a broader problem based on ignorance. You'll find repeating trends that as different societies achieve higher levels of economic status, the choices regarding children graduate towards western reproductive rates. This is why educated estimates on future global population plateaus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  10. #40
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    ...
    I don't see how this is a humane solution to the problem of exile, especially when exile seems less humane than simply fining and/or imprisoning offenders.

    ...
    I think treating people as rational individuals is what's humane. And in case they aren't, they would be better off getting forced psychiatric treatment than being taken advantage of by the government levying them fines.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  11. #41
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeking View Post
    I think treating people as rational individuals is what's humane. And in case they aren't, they would be better off getting forced psychiatric treatment than being taken advantage of by the government levying them fines.
    Are people who refuse to pay taxes and are subsequently fined are irrational or is the taxes themselves considered a fine? I'm not sure who or why someone is irrational in relationship to the social contract and taxes. Maybe I just don't understand how this is supposed to relate to the original topic or maybe it's not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  12. #42
    5000+
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    1984
    Posts
    5,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    Are people who refuse to pay taxes and are subsequently fined are irrational or is the taxes themselves considered a fine? I'm not sure who or why someone is irrational in relationship to the social contract and taxes. Maybe I just don't understand how this is supposed to relate to the original topic or maybe it's not?
    I meant it as separate statements. Crazy people should get help. Jeopardizing your own life needlessly is being crazy, even if it's not a mental disorder or anything like that.

    I think fines are being overused and is ineffective on crazy people and addicts. It's used as a form of tax and it just makes the problem bigger since it never gets to trial where they might get psychiatric treatment, rehab or simply getting rid of their addictions due to poor supply in the prison.
    (color=#333333)(/color)

  13. #43
    7000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Locash
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    The social contract isn't a moral theory; it is a power/political/pragmatist theory. As such, moral arguments against it are a bit off the mark.
    Last edited by Vanno; 08-24-2012 at 02:26.


    "Everytime you PK a newb, a breakdancer shitkicks a baby."-Goty

  14. #44
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanno View Post
    The social contract isn't a moral theory; it is a power/political/pragmatist theory. As such, moral arguments against it are a bit off the mark.
    It is like saying murder is amoral because it is really someone using their power over others.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  15. #45
    7000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Locash
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    It is like saying murder is amoral because it is really someone using their power over others.
    I'm not sure I follow.


    "Everytime you PK a newb, a breakdancer shitkicks a baby."-Goty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •