|
|
#101
10-16-2007, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not. [/ QUOTE ] For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter. [/ QUOTE ] Hahah. Nice try, but this is a bait and switch. I'm not trying to impose any particular definition of freedom. And it's *your* position (implicity) that - whatever it is - it won't "work in practice" (and therefore implicitly that it shouldn't be allowed). Edit: also, please don't ever try any of that hypocritical "you twist things around" crybaby stuff again. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't bait and switch anything, I simply refuse your authority to claim I am an opponent of freedom. It's voluntarism principle 101. It is your opinion that I am, nothing more. [/ QUOTE ] You have definitely conceded the argument. [/ QUOTE ] Actually I completely fail to see where there is an argument in this. Two subjective opinions meet (you are an opponent of freedom vs you are a proponent of freedom), neither one can be held to be objectively true - there is nothing to concede. I even admitted in the text you quoted that to vpn I am an opponent of freedom, since it is a subjective view. 
|
|
#102
10-16-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia. [/ QUOTE ] You think you're shaming me, but you're not. This statement I whole-heartedly agree with. It's called Darwinism. [/ QUOTE ] That would be social-dawinism, different than natural selection. [/ QUOTE ] People who cant find their way to getting some food and thus starve and die is a pretty good example of ACTUAL Darwinism, not really social Darwinism. Of course, there is nothing noble or good about Darwinism so I have no idea why DlbBarrel would use it as some sort of goal or aim. Rape is a HUGE part of Darwinism, for instance.
|
|
#103
10-16-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia. [/ QUOTE ] Standard. This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster. [/ QUOTE ] Its the same logic that should prove, beyond doubt, that statism is evil, since all we need to do is inline a picture of Hitler. I wonder why its less persuasive in that context than in this one? [/ QUOTE ] Good point, sort of. I post pictures of hitler (in front of the Eiffel Tower) inline when people claim that an ACish geographical area would vulnerable to some wacko conquering. When I want to use the "here's a picture that shows statism is evil" argument, it's almost always in response to someone saying "AC is bad, just look at somalia." In those cases, I usualy use Kim Jong-Il, or a picture of the North Korean military marching in the capital. "Statism is bad, just look at North Korea." [/ QUOTE ] I understand that, and thats what I assumed you were doing when you posted those pictures. I wasn't criticizing you, merely alluding to you.
|
|
#104
10-16-2007, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
From TomCollins
[ QUOTE ] Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military have no incentive to do that effectively. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted Off course they have incentives. The only reasons it hasn't been attempted are technological and economic.
|
|
#105
10-16-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
From TomCollins [ QUOTE ] Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military have no incentive to do that effectively. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted Off course they have incentives. The only reasons it hasn't been attempted are technological and economic. [/ QUOTE ] Why do governments have incentives to maintain the value of something? Governments are among the absolute worst maintainers of properties out there. By the way, thanks for the personal attack.
|
|
#106
10-16-2007, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
From TomCollins [ QUOTE ] Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military have no incentive to do that effectively. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted Off course they have incentives. The only reasons it hasn't been attempted are technological and economic. [ QUOTE ] Why do governments have incentives to maintain the value of something? Governments are among the absolute worst maintainers of properties out there. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Who said anything about maintaining. Don't attempt to change the argument. I apolagize for the attack but your premise that states/anyone would not have an incentive to control an/all oceans is stupid
|
|
#107
10-17-2007, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
Why do governments have incentives to maintain the value of something? Governments are among the absolute worst maintainers of properties out there. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean this in a theoretical sense? As in some other mechanism might better protect property in government's place? Or do you mean that, right now, the government is among the absolute worst?
|
|
#108
10-17-2007, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why do governments have incentives to maintain the value of something? Governments are among the absolute worst maintainers of properties out there. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean this in a theoretical sense? As in some other mechanism might better protect property in government's place? Or do you mean that, right now, the government is among the absolute worst? [/ QUOTE ] Mostly in the theoretical sense since this phenomenon is largely related to government monopolies (i.e. we can't see anything better because anything else is strictly forbidden). I started a thread a few months ago that linked to a mises.org article about the theory and it's application to roads.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
