Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?



[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the mafia and the government: SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another (occasional) difference: LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The government gets to make its own rules. And it gets to outlaw certain goods and services, creating the black market that gives rise to the mafia in the first place.

Good show.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I live, the government doesn't just "make its own rules". It's answerable to a higher authority (the people), not to mention the law itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know where this is that you live. Where I live, when I interact with the silly fools who call themselves 'government' they certainly don't seem too concerned about following my wishes. I stand in line and get stonewalled while they dilly dally and hide behind their governmental bureaucratic rules. They do seem very invested in public relations and propaganda however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the government is corrupt. I'm talking about the de jure system put in place by the Founders (which continues to serve us in good stead even today, despite everything), not the maladies the "consumer" public has let develop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not understand who you are or what you believe in or stand for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skidoo/Sharkey has never stood for anything, only against things.

[/ QUOTE ]

That explains it.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


This is a total movement of the goalposts. You suggested that people who did seek arbitration would seek only arbitrators they knew in advance would side with their interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

If arbitration were binding, but not mandatory, no one would show, unless they thought they would win.

If arbitration was neither binding nor mandatory, arbitrators would be ignored.

If arbitration is both mandatory and binding, what you're talking about is government, not anarchy.

[ QUOTE ]
What people do with monopoly arbitrators given that they are already in place is a totally different issue. If you want to argue that private arbitration is somehow inherently incapable of dealing with $10 billion cases, then argue that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that important issues - conflicts where both sides have a lot to win or lose - will not be decided in courts that lack the power to compel attendance, or to issue binding decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
And, I might add, using Bush as an example is begging the question 101, since in an AC world there wouldn't BE any Bush vs. Gore, or Bush vs. whatever county election commission in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush v. Gore is just an example of an important decision.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?



[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the mafia and the government: SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another (occasional) difference: LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The government gets to make its own rules. And it gets to outlaw certain goods and services, creating the black market that gives rise to the mafia in the first place.

Good show.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I live, the government doesn't just "make its own rules". It's answerable to a higher authority (the people), not to mention the law itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know where this is that you live. Where I live, when I interact with the silly fools who call themselves 'government' they certainly don't seem too concerned about following my wishes. I stand in line and get stonewalled while they dilly dally and hide behind their governmental bureaucratic rules. They do seem very invested in public relations and propaganda however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the government is corrupt. I'm talking about the de jure system put in place by the Founders (which continues to serve us in good stead even today, despite everything), not the maladies the "consumer" public has let develop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you're talking about the idealized, fantasyland, utopian, never-seen-in-the-wild version. OK, gotcha.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here’s the central problem for ACists: when it comes to defending the defenseless, ACists must either:

A.) Admit that it won’t happen, or
B.) Describe how it’ll be prevented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this obligation come from? Your personal whim?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Either judge's decisions are binding, or they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not.

[ QUOTE ]
If they're binding, what you're talking about is government, whether you want to admit it or not.

If they're not binding, they'll be ignored in all but the most petty small-claims type stuff, where the dispute wasn't that big of a deal in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, ignore them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it has been described. The solution will emerge from the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The solution will emerge from the market," is not an answer. This is a tired argument, that involves the burden of proof (which I know you don't accept), but the bottom line is most of us don't belive the market will solve this problem, and historical evidence (and just plain common sense) indicates that it won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historical evidence?

Look, I'm not proposing a solution. So demand one all you want, you won't get one from me. The whole point is that I am too dumb to come up with the "right" answer (and so are you).

Obviously there is a big demand for this stuff. So "plain common sense" would indicate that whoever figures out how to provide it should be able to find some willing buyers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People want the defenseless defended (as evidenced by your obvious concern about this issue) so there *is* a demand for such services.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine with paying my share to pay for foster homes, and courts, and all the rest. But I'm not fine with paying more than my share because other people are too selfish to pay anything at all. If you think that impinges on your "right" not to have to contribute... sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't pay more than your share. I don't see what this has to do with me paying or not. Oh, you want X, but you don't want to pay more than Y. So you need some other people to "help" you pay for it. Right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your objection has been met. Unless you mean that you want to know *what* the solution will be. In which case, you should consider the following:

Here’s the central problem for evolutionists: when it comes to the emergence of new species, evolutionists must either:

A.) Admit that it won’t happen, or
B.) Describe what species will emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, pvn, justice, and the protection of the weak and the innocent isn't just any "new species" - it's a particular kind of species, and it doesn't just "evolve" by itself.

You won't get a garden full of roses by standing back and letting nature take its course, you won't get a labrador retriever from a pack of wolves left to their own devices, and you won't get justice without government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. the micromanager. You've already decided ahead of time what the correct answer is, and you're going to force your way to that goal regardless. Well we've had this disussion before, so I'll just re-type what I typed then.

I'm not so arrogant to assume that I can know what the most efficient solution is. You want people that are explicitly opposed to central planning to give you micromanaged maps of how things should progress?

You say this is doging the question, I say you're begging the question. You're basically asking someone that says "your one outer on the river is a 45-to-1 shot" to tell you exactly what the next card will be.

Letting go of control is a big problem for most people. It's hard to accept that micromanagement is counterproductive, especially for people that have built their careers around the concept.

[ QUOTE ]

In the pursuit of learning, every day somehting is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.
Less and less is done
Until non-action is achieved.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.
The world is ruled by letting things take their course.
It can not be ruled by interfering


[/ QUOTE ]


--- Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter Forty-Eight

[ QUOTE ]

Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao,
Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.
For this would only casue resistance.
Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.
Lean years follow in the wake of a great war.
Just do what needs to be done
Never take advantage of power.

Achieve results,
But never glory in them.
Achieve results,
But never boast.
Achieve results,
Because this is the natural way.
Achieve results,
But not through violence.

Force is followed by loss of strength.
This is not the way of Tao.
That which goes against the Tao
comes to an early end.


[/ QUOTE ]


--- Chapter Thirty

[ QUOTE ]

The softest thing in the universe
Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe,
That without substance can enter where there is no room.
Hence I know the value of non-action.

Teaching without words and work without doing
Are understood by very few.


[/ QUOTE ]

--- Chapter Fourty-Three

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution works according to survival of the fittest. It's not the highest moral order we can aspire to, anymore than a dandelion is better than a rose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point, considering that you're basically saying you're going to decide which is better and kill all of the inferior species.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This is a total movement of the goalposts. You suggested that people who did seek arbitration would seek only arbitrators they knew in advance would side with their interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

If arbitration were binding, but not mandatory, no one would show, unless they thought they would win.

If arbitration was neither binding nor mandatory, arbitrators would be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

If arbitration was your only tool for settlement dispute, would you do business with someone you knew to ignore arbitration results he didn't care for? Or would you choose to only deal with those who had good reputations when it comes to such dispute resolution?

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that important issues - conflicts where both sides have a lot to win or lose - will not be decided in courts that lack the power to compel attendance, or to issue binding decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all you have, then you'll be careful to only deal with those you expect will respect those decisions.

Now, think about living in such a society. If you disregard such judgements, you will basically be locked out of any significant transactions.

This is not coercive, since you have no right to interact with anyone without their consent.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And, I might add, using Bush as an example is begging the question 101, since in an AC world there wouldn't BE any Bush vs. Gore, or Bush vs. whatever county election commission in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush v. Gore is just an example of an important decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't important to me. And it would never even be a case in an AC scenario.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo/Sharkey has never stood for anything, only against things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit: On second thought, though it's not my preferred action, I should probably just notify the moderator.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo/Sharkey has never stood for anything, only against things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was mostly lurking lately but now this post. What does it mean exactly? Please explain.

Thank you.

[ShakeZula06]

Mods: it's pretty well agreed upon in both SMP and the politics forum that skidoo and sharkey are the same poster.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Mods: it's pretty well agreed upon in both SMP and the politics forum that skidoo and sharkey are the same poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rumor is incorrect. Please stop spreading it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


Ah. the micromanager. You've already decided ahead of time what the correct answer is, and you're going to force your way to that goal regardless. Well we've had this disussion before, so I'll just re-type what I typed then.

I'm not so arrogant to assume that I can know what the most efficient solution is. You want people that are explicitly opposed to central planning to give you micromanaged maps of how things should progress?

You say this is doging the question, I say you're begging the question. You're basically asking someone that says "your one outer on the river is a 45-to-1 shot" to tell you exactly what the next card will be.

Letting go of control is a big problem for most people. It's hard to accept that micromanagement is counterproductive, especially for people that have built their careers around the concept.



[/ QUOTE ]

PVN,
I've been wondering why you are going back and forth with this guy. I think this part of your post is very accurate.

To me it seems like you are debating in detail potential issue number 680,556,794 parts A-C with this guy.

It seems that he has absolutely no interest in seeling the big picture, of even considering the possibility of the concept. How come your putting in so much effort in these interactions with this guy?