Somali Freedom Fighters

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This sounds suspiciously like the wealthy getting to have the society they they want if they can raise enough money, which is at best the tyranny of majority abhorred by pvn and others and just as likely to be a tryanny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this sounds suspiciously like America right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACists like to claim, or at least imply, that these impositions will be gone following the Enlightenment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 25% of the population is ACist and they are willing to stop paying taxes and supporting the state, that might be sufficient to end the state's reign.

[/ QUOTE ]Tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people voted for George W Bush? What % of America's 300 million people was this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that Bush is acting on behalf of the minority of citizens? Is this supposed to be an argument against democracy and majority rule?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either a person's decision is legitimate or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

With pvn as the sole arbitrator of legitimacy? Your claims to legitimacy are always made by pointing to your version of morality of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This business of you putting words into my mouth is really getting old. Any time I state a position, you start with this self-righteous "sole arbiter" BS. Where have I claimed ths?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What action am I "replacing"??? I built a fence. I said nothing about any moral basis. I just built a fence. Let me repeat the question: what am I exporting to him?

[/ QUOTE ]

If his moral code says the fence is a violation of his rights, your are exporting to him a violation of his rights as he sees it. You continue to say that his morality doesn't count because your morality is contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

What right is he claiming? If he claims he has a right to let his dog poop on my yard, guess what - that's a PROPERTY RIGHT that he's claiming. I'm not "imposing" any "different morality" on him, he's simply making a claim of dispute under the SAME SYSTEM.

Do YOU get to be the "sole arbiter" of who is imposing "contrary moralities" on other people??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no. You brought up this "implict grant" business, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - I'm trying to point out that you misinterpretted it. I didn't say that your actions implicitly grant the right for other to take any actions. I said that when you point to your moral code to defend your action as "legimiate" then it implicitly grants to others to point to their moral code to justify their actions. Don't you think so?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what "moral code" are we talking about here that's so different?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "I say" just shows that it's a subjective evaluation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This applies to your subjective evaluation of what is a right and what is not, no matter how many times you claim that your views are "evident" despite the fact that they don't appear to be "evident" to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the only person who has used the word "evident" here.

[ QUOTE ]
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the preamble to the pvn Declaration of Independence from the United States. Prepare to be moved.

"I hold these truths to be self evident, and you had better as well or I'll shoot you in the head."

Just kind of gets you right there, you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me know when you're ready to stop the grandstanding games.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the critical difference between your example and, say, the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in the US the initiation of the state wasn't universally voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, that's not it. Even if the US were "universally" voluntary, the difference I'm thinking of would still be sticking out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you've lost me here and I really didn't think about it because my post wasn't an attempt to justify the existence of the US government in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
States R Us members band together to acquire a lot of property

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is capitalism in Somalia, as this article clearly indicates. Moreover, even if there were not capitalism and respect for property rights in Somalia, that would also be an argument against anarchocapitalism. Repsect for property cannot just arise out of thin air in an anarchist society. Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have capitalism without the "idea of property rights"?

There's no professional hockey in Somalia. Professional hockey only exists where there is government. Therefore, government is necessary to cultivate and protect the idea of professional hockey. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the strained analogies are out in full force - OP must be onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet still no rebuttals. These anologies must be on to something.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What knife stabbing? Did you read what you quoted?

Bickford's argument was as follows:

1) (implied) there is no respect for property rights in Somalia
2) (implied) the places that currently exhibit significant respect for property rights all have governments
3) (conclusion) therefore, government is necessary for property rights

Now just substitue "professional hockey" for "respect for property rights".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I can't keep track of all the bad analogies. The problem with this one is that it misstates OP's position.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I misstate it? I *directly* quoted it.

[ QUOTE ]
Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how this is a "bad" analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both OP, and the article, recognize that there is at least some respect for property rights there. Notice how all those folks are fighting for what is "theirs?"

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Troll post deleted by jman220. One Day Ban Issued.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boo!

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to know the mods have no sense of humor. And someone needs to ban Jman for throwing out the troll label.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What knife stabbing? Did you read what you quoted?

Bickford's argument was as follows:

1) (implied) there is no respect for property rights in Somalia
2) (implied) the places that currently exhibit significant respect for property rights all have governments
3) (conclusion) therefore, government is necessary for property rights

Now just substitue "professional hockey" for "respect for property rights".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I can't keep track of all the bad analogies. The problem with this one is that it misstates OP's position.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I misstate it? I *directly* quoted it.

[ QUOTE ]
Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how this is a "bad" analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both OP, and the article, recognize that there is at least some respect for property rights there. Notice how all those folks are fighting for what is "theirs?"

[/ QUOTE ]

If I say your apple is "mine" is that demonstrating a "respect for property rights"?

If there *is* respect for property rights in Somalia, doesn't that directly contradict OP's claim?

PS: Somailia has a government now. Why hasn't the situation improved? Somalia is now the *statist* fantasyland utopia!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Somailia has a government now. Why hasn't the situation improved? Somalia is now the *statist* fantasyland utopia!

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't say that they have a government with such a limited authority as it has. It had for a while a government (the Islamic courts union) and some parts have de facto local governments but most of it is defacto without government. The situation improved during the government period and also the situation is better in those parts of the country that still has a de facto government.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
This business of you putting words into my mouth is really getting old. Any time I state a position, you start with this self-righteous "sole arbiter" BS. Where have I claimed ths?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't say "I am the only one that gets to decide", you say that you get to do everything your way on your property because that's your right without acknowledging that someone else may not disagree. You counter with "I don't care that they disagree because they don't have a right to disagree on my property" but that's just circular because you are defending your right to define your own rights by pointing to your rights to define your rights.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know when you're ready to stop the grandstanding games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you didn't find that even a little entertaining?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This business of you putting words into my mouth is really getting old. Any time I state a position, you start with this self-righteous "sole arbiter" BS. Where have I claimed ths?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't say "I am the only one that gets to decide", you say that you get to do everything your way on your property because that's your right without acknowledging that someone else may not disagree. You counter with "I don't care that they disagree because they don't have a right to disagree on my property" but that's just circular because you are defending your right to define your own rights by pointing to your rights to define your rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to write this down. This is like the greatest counterargument ever.

Whenever someone arges for social security, or arbortion, or road construction thusly:

"Policy XYZ should be enacted for reason ABC"

I'll just say "ZOMG WHO MADE YOU KING?"

Note that if you continue with this line of thinking, it flips right back on you. Your *objecting* to my "sole arbiter* status is nothing more than elevating *yourself* to "sole arbiter" status. My "sole arbiter" status is bogus *just because you say so*???

And if you continue on, you see that this means that ANY claim one makes against another is illegitimate, UNLESS there is VOLUNTARY consent from BOTH sides.

Which is *exactly* my position.

Good to see that you've finally seen the light.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me know when you're ready to stop the grandstanding games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you didn't find that even a little entertaining?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Are you going to get around to the actual questions I asked you?