Reactions to AC

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain. Considering you don't even know the answer to the question, and you're presupposing a key piece of information.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
the conflict between your absolute right to control your labor (P2) and others' absolute right to control the fruits of their labor (P3) would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned, whereupon either you could not labor anywhere without being subject to the will of the property owner on whose property you wish to labor, invalidating P2, or the property owner could not exercise control over the manner and measure of (your) labor on engaged in upon his property, invalidating P3.

Consequently either your P2 or P3 (or both) is false and the conclusion that rests upon them is unsound. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no conflict; you continue to conflate. The ownership of one's labor is a seperate issue from where one may reside. When I'm in someone else's house, I may agree to refrain from certain exercises of my labor, but I still own it.

QEunD.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have public education for free too. Obviously private schools can't possibly compete, except: they can and do compete, and their results generally outstrip their publically funded competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows what? That publicly provided services are inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]
These two responses (this and the one below) actually made me sigh out loud.

No, PVN, this shows that private concerns can and sometimes do compete successfully against the public sector, even when the service the public sector provides is "free", and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition. This is also true of private security firms (such as Brinks or Tenable ), private military organizations (such as these), private mediators and arbitrators, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! The state-provided services are SO bad (because there's zero incentive for them to improve, since you have to pay for them regardless) that people will pay for them AND a private alternative because they are THAT DESPARATE for a viable solution. True, in a sense, this isn't "monopoly" but the state has a guarnateed revenue stream that it maintains by force. The fact that there are private alternatives doesn't excuse coercive funding for the state-provided "solution". If anything, it makes the crime that much more obvious. The fact that government isn't quite bad enough in some particular markets to engender private alternatives, or that those markets are *so* oppressively distorted that private competition *cannot* arise also does nothing to excuse or justify the state action.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So whoever starts off with the most money buys the roads, and then charges however much they want for 'em until alternatives are constructed

[/ QUOTE ]

So the government hasn't supplied enough roads?
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
No PVN, alternatives roads would be constructed by desparate and/or profit-minded folks because the roadopolists who bought the pre-existing roads would in many areas be able to charge literally anything they wanted until alternative roads were built, thus providing near-infinite incentive for the construction of those alternative roads (and, of course, for theft and violence by individuals desparate to buy groceries but unable or unwilling to pay the roadopolists' exhorbitant rates).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
PVN wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "government has [censored] things up so bad that you should just grab your ankles and keep taking it, because the alternative will be worse" justification. A classic.

[/ QUOTE ]
My friend, your answer is positively Freudian. A more succinct (and semantically identical, by the way) way of stating this would be,

Ah, the old "Government's solution is better than AC's solution" justification. A classic.

I'm not surprised that you avoided making this simple statement and instead phrased your response the more crass way you did; the obvious inferiority of replacing the current (US interstate) status quo with an AC system, as you suggested a few posts back, must be psychically painful for you. That said, I hope you don't let your emotional attachment to AC dogma get the better of your reason in this instance though: this is an excellent opportunity for you to open your eyes to the utility of a mixed economy.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problem at all! Tell him to start here:
link He should be able to figure out what to look at next. If you find anything not to your liking, try any of the methods I suggested above for bringing about change, or you could make your exit, per the "throwing off the chains" link, also above.

[/ QUOTE ]


cool .. since the constitution is the contract. I should have no problem holding these [censored] in breach. I cant wait to get the refund plus damages for paying them to represent me for all these years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Collecting damages from the government wouldn't make much sense, since you'd (in effect) be paying yourself. You're of course welcome to take 'em to court though for whatever breaches you believe they've committed.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have public education for free too. Obviously private schools can't possibly compete, except: they can and do compete, and their results generally outstrip their publically funded competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows what? That publicly provided services are inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]
These two responses (this and the one below) actually made me sigh out loud.

No, PVN, this shows that private concerns can and sometimes do compete successfully against the public sector, even when the service the public sector provides is "free", and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition. This is also true of private security firms (such as Brinks or Tenable ), private military organizations (such as these), private mediators and arbitrators, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! The state-provided services are SO bad (because there's zero incentive for them to improve, since you have to pay for them regardless) that people will pay for them AND a private alternative because they are THAT DESPARATE for a viable solution. True, in a sense, this isn't "monopoly" but the state has a guarnateed revenue stream that it maintains by force. The fact that there are private alternatives doesn't excuse coercive funding for the state-provided "solution". If anything, it makes the crime that much more obvious. The fact that government isn't quite bad enough in some particular markets to engender private alternatives, or that those markets are *so* oppressively distorted that private competition *cannot* arise also does nothing to excuse or justify the state action.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So whoever starts off with the most money buys the roads, and then charges however much they want for 'em until alternatives are constructed

[/ QUOTE ]

So the government hasn't supplied enough roads?
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
No PVN, alternatives roads would be constructed by desparate and/or profit-minded folks because the roadopolists who bought the pre-existing roads would in many areas be able to charge literally anything they wanted until alternative roads were built, thus providing near-infinite incentive for the construction of those alternative roads (and, of course, for theft and violence by individuals desparate to buy groceries but unable or unwilling to pay the roadopolists' exhorbitant rates).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
PVN wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "government has [censored] things up so bad that you should just grab your ankles and keep taking it, because the alternative will be worse" justification. A classic.

[/ QUOTE ]
My friend, your answer is positively Freudian. A more succinct (and semantically identical, by the way) way of stating this would be,

Ah, the old "Government's solution is better than AC's solution" justification. A classic.

I'm not surprised that you avoided making this simple statement and instead phrased your response the more crass way you did; the obvious inferiority of replacing the current (US interstate) status quo with an AC system, as you suggested a few posts back, must be psychically painful for you. That said, I hope you don't let your emotional attachment to AC dogma get the better of your reason in this instance though: this is an excellent opportunity for you to open your eyes to the utility of a mixed economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't even know what the AC solution is!

There IS no "AC solution"!

There's no basis for your supposition that the status quo must be replaced.

I'm not advocating destruction of anything.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain. Considering you don't even know the answer to the question, and you're presupposing a key piece of information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but you're going to hate the explanation:

I am not presupposing; rather, I drew an inference through inductive reasoning (your bete noir today!).

EP1. Many of the posters in these forums have attended college or university, especially those who post in SMP and Politics.
EP2. Your writing style and vocabulary are consistent with the style and vocabulary I associate with university-educated people of above-average intelligence.
EP3. Most universities in the United States are funded at least in part, by the State and/or the individual state in which they exist - IE, by government - especially when government grants and government-backed student loans are taken into account.
EP4. From time to time, you appear to evade difficult questions about AC.
EP5. Sometimes when you evade a question but wish to respond to a different part of a post, you fail to quote the part you wish to evade.
EP6. My question about whether or not you attended a state-sponsored university, assuming you did in fact so attend, would make you appear hypocritical.
EP7. You did not voluntarily answer my question in the negative, which I suspect you would have done, perhaps with a bit of gloating, had my induction been wrong*.
EP8. You didn't quote my question when you responded to other parts of the post in which I asked it.

*To your credit if you did in fact attend public university, you didn't deny it. If this is the case, I commend you.

"EP", as I'm using it above, stands for "evidentiary premise". My reasoning in this instance is necessarily inductive rather than deductive, so my inference ("PVN probably attended public university"), unlike the conclusion of a deductive argument, does not follow absolutely from the premises; rather, it is probablistic. The premises offer support for, but do not prove, the inference.

Needless to say, my inference may be wrong. Is it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain. Considering you don't even know the answer to the question, and you're presupposing a key piece of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, I'm really disappointed you decided to stop engaging the actual arguments and instead go after me personally. It seems that, since you're a self-described fan of "formal logic" that you would know the ad hominem fallacy.

Alas.

Good evening; I'll be travelling all day tomorrow (on government-supplied roads!).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain. Considering you don't even know the answer to the question, and you're presupposing a key piece of information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but you're going to hate the explanation:

I am not presupposing; rather, I drew an inference through inductive reasoning (your bete noir today!).

EP1. Many of the posters in these forums have attended college or university, especially those who post in SMP and Politics.
EP2. Your writing style and vocabulary are consistent with the style and vocabulary I associate with university-educated people of above-average intelligence.
EP3. Most universities in the United States are funded at least in part, by the State and/or the individual state in which they exist - IE, by government - especially when government grants and government-backed student loans are taken into account.
EP4. From time to time, you appear to evade difficult questions about AC.
EP5. Sometimes when you evade a question but wish to respond to a different part of a post, you fail to quote the part you wish to evade.
EP6. My question about whether or not you attended a state-sponsored university, assuming you did in fact so attend, would make you appear hypocritical.
EP7. You did not voluntarily answer my question in the negative, which I suspect you would have done, perhaps with a bit of gloating, had my induction been wrong*.
EP8. You didn't quote my question when you responded to other parts of the post in which I asked it.

*To your credit if you did in fact attend public university, you didn't deny it. If this is the case, I commend you.

"EP", as I'm using it above, stands for "evidentiary premise". My reasoning in this instance is necessarily inductive rather than deductive, so my inference ("PVN probably attended public university"), unlike the conclusion of a deductive argument, does not follow absolutely from the premises; rather, it is probablistic. The premises offer support for, but do not prove, the inference.

Needless to say, my inference may be wrong. Is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw this right after I made my last response. Since you're so worried about what I'm evading, why don't you gather up all the points of mine that you've dropped in this thread and address those while I'm gone tomorrow.

kthnxbai

PS: you incorrectly presupposed what I was thinking of when I said you were presupposing.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the conflict between your absolute right to control your labor (P2) and others' absolute right to control the fruits of their labor (P3) would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned, whereupon either you could not labor anywhere without being subject to the will of the property owner on whose property you wish to labor, invalidating P2, or the property owner could not exercise control over the manner and measure of (your) labor on engaged in upon his property, invalidating P3.

Consequently either your P2 or P3 (or both) is false and the conclusion that rests upon them is unsound. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no conflict; you continue to conflate. The ownership of one's labor is a seperate issue from where one may reside. When I'm in someone else's house, I may agree to refrain from certain exercises of my labor, but I still own it.

QEunD.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't "still" own it once all real estate becomes owned. Your self-ownership, including your absolute right to control your labor, necessarily conflicts with somebody else's absolute right to control the fruits of their labor under that circumstance.

If every place is somebody else's "house" (property), their ownership would render you perpetually subject to the will of another, thus negating your absolute self-ownership (which is defined as the "exclusive" right to control your body and life). If the owner(s) of all real estate on earth could say, "no crack-smokage in here", their property rights would absolutely prohibit you from smoking crack, which would impinge upon your (according to the doctrine of self-ownership) absolute right to smoke crack.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain. Considering you don't even know the answer to the question, and you're presupposing a key piece of information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but you're going to hate the explanation:

I am not presupposing; rather, I drew an inference through inductive reasoning (your bete noir today!).

EP1. Many of the posters in these forums have attended college or university, especially those who post in SMP and Politics.
EP2. Your writing style and vocabulary are consistent with the style and vocabulary I associate with university-educated people of above-average intelligence.
EP3. Most universities in the United States are funded at least in part, by the State and/or the individual state in which they exist - IE, by government - especially when government grants and government-backed student loans are taken into account.
EP4. From time to time, you appear to evade difficult questions about AC.
EP5. Sometimes when you evade a question but wish to respond to a different part of a post, you fail to quote the part you wish to evade.
EP6. My question about whether or not you attended a state-sponsored university, assuming you did in fact so attend, would make you appear hypocritical.
EP7. You did not voluntarily answer my question in the negative, which I suspect you would have done, perhaps with a bit of gloating, had my induction been wrong*.
EP8. You didn't quote my question when you responded to other parts of the post in which I asked it.

*To your credit if you did in fact attend public university, you didn't deny it. If this is the case, I commend you.

"EP", as I'm using it above, stands for "evidentiary premise". My reasoning in this instance is necessarily inductive rather than deductive, so my inference ("PVN probably attended public university"), unlike the conclusion of a deductive argument, does not follow absolutely from the premises; rather, it is probablistic. The premises offer support for, but do not prove, the inference.

Needless to say, my inference may be wrong. Is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw this right after I made my last response. Since you're so worried about what I'm evading, why don't you gather up all the points of mine that you've dropped in this thread and address those while I'm gone tomorrow.

kthnxbai

PS: you incorrectly presupposed what I was thinking of when I said you were presupposing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I'm glad your remark was ambiguous. This was a fun discussion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PS: Can we still be friends?