This guy has a personality disorder, People in power have this grandiose sense of power & think they can get away with anything. Very hard to get rid of these disorders. There R drugs that can deal with it, don't know if it ever goes away. This guy sends out crotch photos of himself? Women don't want to see these type of photos! He risks his marriage, career. Deep reasons for this behavior . Hes a political geek that wormed his way in & has nothing to fall back on. Get rid of him.
media supports weiner said media is focusing on him to much,while at the sametime there wheeling 1000s of s.palan emails out to find nothing,nothing liberal media leftwing hit squad. NOW LIBERAL MEDIA IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WEINER AND HE USED THE MEDIA SHAMED THE MEDIA,MADE FUN OF THE MEDIA.HE USED YOU! THIS IS CALLED Kool-Aid* DRINKING, MEDIA BIAS & B.S
@ITILII learning math is hard, but that doesn't keep a normal person from learning it. learning english is hard, but that doesn't prevent a normal person from learning it. progressive taxes is fairest form of tax. it is not half has hard as learning the multiplication table or english grammar. the reason to abandon progressive tax because it's hard is pure stupidity. that's like saying let's not use computers because despite its advantages, it's learning curve is too high.
he also probably got kiddie porn on his computer from those underage girls he was following on tweeter one is 16 from Ca. there are a few others. another is 17 from delaware. hahaha he is fucked! The democrats are fighting for him to resign cuz he probably shared his kiddie porn with all the other democrats & they don't want an investiation of Weiner to be traced to them. better idea tho: Weiner & the whole democrat party including 0bama resign from office and the economy wil instantly improve.
I know this doesn't have much to do with your arguments, but its refreshing to see you behaving this way rather than the way you were say.... a year or so ago? Just saying.
@LEFT4BASS I'm not an American, so the following question is just genuine curiosity: 1% conservative or libertarian, including ancaps? Really so low? How many in your class? No one but you?
@john42t I'm actually kind of both. I mostly agree with Libertarian stances except abortion, which I am against. There are 400 students in my school. Most are not into politics so most would be non-partisans. If I was to ask around the school, 90% probably would not be able to explain what Libertarians believe and 60% probably would have probably never heard of the Libertarian party.
@OatSharpener Because lot's of people have no lives. The only way i would find the story interesting would be if Weiner was some sort of notorious prude. If he lied about something that actually mattered to the public or his office then it might be important, but honestly it's just childish crap.
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Yeah, he shouldn't have lied, he should have simply pointed out it's no-one's business or concern but his and this woman's.
I'd be interested in the story, as it would point to his character and hypocrasy, were he some kind of ted haggart, social conservative who never shut up about marriage and all that but he isn't.
this is amazing the congress fails the people and all they can do is get him for sending a picture thats amazing you all deseve the hell coming to you
There nothing worse than a lying, progressive degenerate, Democrat perverts, a self-hating white Jew rat. Anthony, his wife, Hillary and Bill can tweet pictures to themselves for all I care. Some day maybe progressives will be sent to their sewer drains where they came from. Having said that, I support Israel, they have a right to exist.
Libtard districts vote for iomoral unprincipaled people.....I hope Weiner stays put....the GOP will kick him for the next 18 months and the leftists will all be painted with the same brush
....number one thing about this is that...WOMEN ARE WHORES....WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS ..YOU GET TO TALK TO THEM AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS..BUT WHEN SHIT HITS THE FAN ...THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ARE THE FIRST TO COME "OUT' AGAINST YOU...
How come we are all focusing so much on this? Does it really matter what a politician does in his free time? Does it matter if this man sent a picture of his junk to a woman? Does that have any impact whatsoever on his views of the economy, the wars, and any other political policies? I mean, really, is this whole nation 13 years olds in sex-ed class, giggling because someone said penis? Sex is part of human life (the cause of it) and should not be part of an argument against a politician.
ANTHONY WEINER, JOHN EDWARDS, BILL CLINTON, GOD BLESS YOUR TESTOSTERONE. YOU GUYS ARE REAL MEN! TRY TO FUCK AS MUCH AS YOU CAN . PUSSY MAKES MEN REAL MEN! A MEN WHO DOESNT FUCK HAS ESTROGEN . GOD BLESS DEMOCRATS . JOHN EDWARDS MAKE MORE BABIES . CHINA FUCKS LIKE THERE IS NO TOMOROW, DEMOCRATS TRY TO FUCK AND MAKE BABIES, FUCK CHINA WE WILL BEAT CHINA.WE SHOULD MAKE BABIES! CHINESE SELL CHEAP THONGS AND G-STRINGS TO AMERICAN WOMEN TO MAKE THEM INFERTILE, AMERICAN WOMEN WEAR COTON PANTIES, ONLY!
Lieing under office is a crime right? not saying this guy did for sure (I believe in innocent until proven guilty), but just curious, I've wondered this before.
Who cares if Weiner sent that picture. I could care less about his personal life. If you want someone to resign for that, your asking for big government. If you want government to leave the economy alone, but you want government to control peoples' personal lives. Hypocracy much?
@CesarManiaX Anybody with ANY sense should care if a politician is caught lying!! These idiots are destroying our republic and freedom with their bullsh@t. He's a freedom hating, 2nd ammendment erroding jack-ass..a tyrrant! And dumb people like you don't even realize that it's these jerks who are supposed to be protecting our rights, instead they are lying to your face and snapping shots of their di@ks and sending them to tons of women..while the are married! Your comment doesn't even make sense
@CesarManiaX I'm inclined to agree. I would even say that lying in this particular situation is somewhat understandable given that the topic is no one's business. Of course the political climate is charged and nobody really thinks about the act itself, people are smearing, and that's very harmful. Every time such a "scandel" is discussed it obfuscates the actual issues to debate. Of course the smearing is done on all sides.
That's irrelevant to his position as politician. Same with Clinton back in the 90s, cheating on Hillary was irrelevant to his performance as a President.
You nor anyone else has any business on Weiner's personal life (although he did post a picture of himself, silly him)
Kids are easily persuaded because they're stupid. That's why they're automatically liberal without putting much thought into it. But it's also why they fall for your cheap debate tactics.
Maybe if all those people were receiving cheques from the Kock brothers and other Billionaires who want to destroy the middle class and pay no taxes, they would agree?
You know just like HTWW is paid by these astro turf organisations who pray on the stupid religous majority?
Almost there Lee, just slow down the end of your videos a little bit more. You compress your closing too much, and the words run together. We're not in a rush dude.
Oh, do you think you can post some of those debates you mentioned? I'd enjoy hearing the Q&As.
I'm more disappointed we're having a national discussion over the sanctity of Twitter than some congressman sending out photos of his junk to attractive young women.
@bobbytiger Unlike all those republicans secretly having gay sex behind everyone's back while voting against gay marriage? Let me put it this way. If you have an IQ over 0, you will lie. People lie. If you think someone is completely honest, you are lying to yourself.
Politicians never seem to learn that lies and coverups will ALWAYS catch up with them. I liked Rep. Weiner and agreed with a lot of his policy positions, but I have no tolerance for this kind of bullshit. Fellow Democrat or not, he should resign immediately. He has disgraced himself, his family, his constituents, his party and most of all, his country.
We all make mistakes. But if your honest what can people really say to that. The fact he lied to me and others for the pass few days makes me very angry. What a freaking moron he is. WTF is wrong with him.
Why Em I not surprised he did it himself. Politicians are basically all liars most of the time. This is a typical idiotic thing a politician would do. I live in NYC and he should be ashamed of himself acting like this when your in high authority position. He has it coming and deserves the Embarrassment he gets. Bought shame to NYC. Fooling and lying to peoples faces. I think it just got so big he
could not cover it up. If he was at least honest from the get go I could have more
He should've told the truth from the get go. Sure, he might run into some marital trouble. Possibly get some counseling that could still end up in divorce. Who cares? People vote for you to DO YOUR JOB. Not worry about your private life. That's my two cents. The media should move on, but we all know the public loves scandals and rumors. No matter how small (that's not meant as a joke).
I dont' care too much about this. I think he did get hacked, I also think it was his penis. They probably found that picture in his files, and he's too embarressed to admit that so he's just saying he doesn't know. I mean the girl said she didn't know Weiner, she's not that atractive, so it doesn't make much sense to me. If he did do he either 1. Tried to send it to someone on facebook or something and by accident send it on twitter. 2. Was drunk one night and send it. Only thing I can thnk of.
@thehoffmanapprentice 100% agree. If dude is gonna outright lie, he will just say it isnt his wang. Seems its clearly his dick pic, but he didnt send it.
it would be really nice if you would make a video explaining in depth both schools of thought on economics (Keynesian and Austrian) so people can decide for themselves which one they subscribe to
Maryland congressman Steny Hoyer on Anthony Weiner: “I told him that he needs to handle this and he needed to give the facts accurately to the public."
That tweeted picture looked as though Weiner had been handling it quite enough already.
Oh, how noble. So, you want a lunatic who holds power over voting where all of our $ goes to be sending cock pics over the internet to a woman young enough to be his daughter? He's obviously an idiot and so are you.
@btwall60 No he's an animal, like you and me and we are meant to continue the species. It is a biological imperative and as such we do crazy things because of it. He's not a lunatic, the same way gay bashing right wingers who are caught at gay bars are not lunatics, just repressed by our puritanical society. Though the right wingers are a bit more hypocritical as they are the bastions of "family values" what crap. "Goes to be sending cock picks?" Excellent grammar. It wasn't on our dime.
@beenz07 He said "where all our money goes" not "goes to be sending cock picks."
"Humans are animals" is not a very good argument for anything. We are not like other animals, who do lots of things we don't do in civilization, which is not an animal.
When Republicans get caught in these scandals, they lose the support of their voters and resign. When Democrats get caught they fight tooth and nail to stay in power, while their supporters defend them beyond all reason and attack everything else.
"Oh, how noble. So, you want a lunatic who holds power over voting where all of our $ goes to be sending cock pics over the internet to a woman young enough to be his daughter? He's obviously an idiot and so are you." Oh really? because there is no punctuation in there separating them as sentences or even clauses. In fact he said exactly that. We eat shit and fuck like everything else. Did asshole resign after having an affair in Brazil?
@beenz07 Still doesn't change what I said. I had no problem figuring out he was saying "where all our money goes" and it reads just fine without a comma. In fact, you have to add imaginary breaks to render it as you said. "Goes to be sending cock pics" was your creation. You're just being pedantic. At best your argument is reduced to "lulz. hee ain't yoozing satesfieing gramerz! wat stooped..!?" and all you've done is emphasize the irrelevance of your comment.
@NobodyImportant2008 Our societal "values" r derived from bits of antiquated desert scrolls.I don't defend any politician because none of them come close to representing me.Not everything is Democrat or Republican.The belief that Republicans have more integrity than Democrats clearly illustrates how your brand of favoritism permeates your mentality. We are not as evolved as we think we are and you all have to stop pretending to know how we should and should not behave. Fuck you and good day sir.
@beenz07 Really? I thought they were evolutionary adaptations for our collective benefit? You should probably notify your friends Judeo-christianity was the source of morality afterall. They'll be so embarrassed. If you assume they came from scrolls, they were still written by 'animals' more insightful than you. Who asks an anarchic sociopath living in an incubator for philosophical wisdom? All you can do is generalize-from-self, maybe you *are* less evolved. Just be silent, beast. Let men talk.
@NobodyImportant2008 If you think the bible is everyone's source of morality, maybe you're the one who lives in an incubator? 99% of the bible has nothing to do with collective benefit. Universal healthcare was written for our collective benefit. If you don't understand evolution you shouldn't talk about it.
@NobodyImportant2008 What the fuck are you talking about? Evolutionary adaptations? What do property laws and rape laws have to do with evolution? Evolutionarily rape is beneficial. I'm a moral skeptic and Im calling bullshit. As though all anarchists desire chaos and murder. We are bacteria clinging to a pebble hurling through space. Our values and morals are complete fiction derrived to control the masses. Im not saying they are completely unnecessary, Im saying they are completely bs.
@beenz07 Lol, go ask an atheist where morality comes from if you don't believe me. How could you shoot your allies in the back like this?
My point wasn't that all anarchists desire chaos and murder - or even that all sociopaths do. Just that particular anarchists - such as nihilistic sociopaths with a chronic disregard for the rights and values of others - are not often consulted for philosophical insight, and with good reason. The same reason beasts should not be debating morality with man.
@NobodyImportant2008 Sociologicaly, our morals have come about over time. That doesn't mean they are essential in the development of a highly functioning society. Biological evolution is what I assumed you were referring to. My bad? It seems like a safe assumption. However you have to understand that rights are imaginary as well. Carlin has a great bit about no rights or unlimited rights. Value judgments are completely subjective meaning total relativism.
@beenz07 The stock argument is that humans are not a tabula rasa, morality is hard-wired into our brains (yes, biologically) from birth, and civilization and laws merely reflect this innate human morality. I didn't invent this argument. It is used to counter theist claims that atheism is nihilistic, which is why I laughed.
Insisting that rights and values are imaginary doesn't help you very much. You might as well deny logic and entity while you're at it. The Essenes were more evolved than you.
Rights and values aren't imaginary, but they're hard to define and agree on. Like property rights: who gets to decide? Most borders were fought over with blood. Does that make them right? Does time make things right? Military might?
@dookdawg214 You're thinking of rights as a separate and agreed upon privilege given by a government to it's citizens. IE, Civil\Constitutional rights. These are power distribution. Low power distance societies need to be fairly distributed as any citizen is a potential threat. High power distance societies have no need to negotiate. Beenz is talking about all rights, especially so called natural rights, IE, Life & Liberty. Humans are born free. No force yet known can restrain the truth forever.
People are born free (uh, sort of), but that doesn't make it their right. The word "right" carries a lot of baggage with it. That's the problem. It infers that, somehow, society *should* respect it. But then we're forced into a conversation on meta-ethics. Is there an objective law giver? I don't believe so. As people, only we, en masse, can decide what is a right. I realize that "mob rule" has issues, but for now it's the best we have, and it has yielded the best results.
@dookdawg214 Now you're playing with etymology. 'Deserved, entitled, permitted, etc' is not the same concept as either 'Correct, proper' or 'The east side of an object or plane when facing north.'
It's pretty absurd to say someone doesn't have a right to self-determination. Their very existence demonstrates ownership and you really can't separate it from them. For the sake of argument you can assume a government permits it, but it requires no force to maintain, and infinite force to suppress.
I'm not trying to play with words. I genuinely don't believe in natural rights. I believe that rights can only exist through a collective agreement. Should you be able to smoke pot if you want? I say, yes, you should. But I also recognize that my acknowledgement of your 'right' is subjective. You were born with the ability to inhale what you want, but not with a 'right' to do so. Without a human-made legal system, a 'right' can't even exist.
@dookdawg214 Again you're looking at artificial constructs. The 'right' to smoke pot depends on you having it in your possession, so maintaining that right requires an exponential force and can be denied forever by failing to exercise it. In contrast, simply being born gives you self-determination. It's part of the person. Laws exist precisely for that reason. Government can't survive in defiance of nature and humanity - except on paper - and so you have Liberals. =p
You're just asserting things without making a case. Laws exist precisely because we're born with self-determination? Where do you get that? No! Laws exist for various reasons. Maybe you meant to say "laws SHOULD exist because...", but that would be your opinion. As far as government not being able to survive in defiance of nature and humanity... many of the functions we give to government are based on our NATURAL desire to live in a peaceful, healthy, productive society.
@dookdawg214 Next time you don't understand what I'm saying, don't assume it's without reason. Laws restrict freedoms people already have. Self-determination makes them necessary. Common sense.
Your assertion that governments are given functions by our natural desire for peace and security helps my case. You also said earlier that 'right' implies society should respect it. Should humans respect their own nature?
Last, if humans have natural desires at all, it defeats what Beenz is saying.
1- 'Laws restrict freedoms people already have.' Explain how you're defining 'freedom'. You're using a loaded word. Depending on your usage, I don't think I agree that we're born with freedoms.
2- 'Should humans respect their own nature?' Again, a loaded word: 'should'. It's in my nature to want to go grab a woman in the street and have sex with her without her consent. Do you think everyone should respect that aspect of my nature?
@dookdawg214 As for "2": Wow, I would call myself a person too honest for my own good, but this... you have my respect. Out of curiosity, can you express such views to peers in real life? Are you American? Is a sentence like that social suicide in the US or not?
Regarding expressing this to real-life peers… that depends on the discussion I’m having and the person’s ability to understand what I mean. I adhere to social NORMS and LAWS like everyone else. That means I shake hands because everyone else does. I wear ties to weddings. I chew with my mouth closed. I also restrain my natural urges for the better of society and for the individual(s) in question. I don't expect humans to respect natural behaviors that hurt society.
@dookdawg214 1) It's not a 'loaded word.' We don't make laws to restrict things people already can't do. Freedom is potential action. Self-determination is a right. It gives you the freedom to do bad things. Therefore: Laws.
2) I didn't ask if everyone should respect your nature, but if they ought respect their own. Your nature is incomplete. Empathy usually outweighs rape, else you'd plan, bystanders would help you, etc. It's illegal because people do respect their common nature.
You're still making assertions with no sound argument. You assert that freedom and self-determination are rights. I don't agree. Putting that aside for a second though, do you believe human nature is sufficient to not need laws? You do realize, don't you, that we used to have it that way? It didn't work. People fight, steal and hog up resources, which requires more fighting and stealing. Thus, over time, it's NATURAL for societies to evolve into a social-contract system.
@dookdawg214 I didn't assert that any ambiguous freedom was a right or make assertions without sound argument. The purpose of "Self-determination is a right" was specifically to provide a distinction between Freedoms and Rights. How is:
1) Freedom is potential action.
2) Self-determination gives you freedom to do bad things.
3) Laws don't restrict impossible things.
'With no sound argument'? "Laws exist (restricting freedoms people already have) because of self-determination" as I said before.
@dookdawg214 "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
What's the point of the Burke quote? I agree with it. Society can't function properly without control. The less control one has over his own selfish desires, the more control is needed from the collective force. For example, if I selfishly attempt to acquire a grossly disproportionate share of resources, it's up to the collective force (Burke's controlling power without) to take some of it away from me. That's why we force people to pay taxes.
@dookdawg214 The quote was in answer to 'is human nature sufficient to forgo law?' Good, moral, rational people do not need it. Not all people are these things.
'selfishly .. acquire .. disproportionate share' makes a variety of assumptions about motive, method, proportion & property:
1) 'Selfish' is not illegal or innately immoral, if even true.
1) Most don't believe that. Eating & sleeping are selfish. All is vanity, etc. Being inconsiderate is rude, but immoral to the point of justifying force is entirely different. Nobody enforces altruism.
2) Your insinuation was that acquisition was illicit in a way which justified force & restraint.
3) 'Reasonable' is still ambiguous.
4) One 'gang' didn't magically inherit the property of every other gang & entity.
5) You said 'that's why we .. force .. taxes' indicating causation.
1) No. Everyone realizes that eating and sleeping are necessary. Also, there are levels of immorality. Not holding the door for an old lady is not the same as robbing her. Yes, enforcing altruism is logically impossible. But forced sharing is possible, efficient and beneficial to society.
2) Take 'have' or 'end up with' if you prefer; works the same for me.
3) You're right, but this is the key part! Society decides what is too much. I realize, a collective measuring stick isn't easy to agree on, but we can shoot for averages. In place of moral realism, mass rule is the best we have (despite its gross imperfections).
4) Not one gang – many. My point is, we're constantly trading goods and resources that are artificially owned. Everything is a trade of a trade of a trade, etc. But if you trace them back far enough, traded objects were once claimed from nothing and/or confiscated by force. Where the Libertarian believes he owns something, the rationalist understands he’s borrowing from society. That’s why we don’t mind taxes. It’s part of a contract that Libertarians are forced into.
5) Fallacy of equivocation. Forcing taxes does not equate to punishment anymore than forcing my kids to eat their vegetables does. I recognize that taxes are forced on people. But that doesn’t make it punishment. Progressive taxes are logical. You may consider them as punishment, but that’s not the intention.
My biggest arguments with Libertarians aren’t about economical principles or facts. I typically agree with most of the facts Lee points out. Where I differ is that Libertarians attempt to sidestep the is-ought dilemma. You don’t get a free pass on that. You also play loose with words like ‘freedom’ (which is question begging). I can admit that my views are subjective and hinge on popular acceptance. But Libertarians push theirs as objective truths, which is philosophically dishonest.
That's barely relevant. You're not addressing the is-ought dilemma either and your arguments for universal collective actions are much worse than mine which require one or fewer. If I don't get a 'free pass' neither do you. I also responded to 'is-ought', in the thread with Beenz.
I defined Freedom when you asked, so please don't start that B.S. rhetoric again. I'm pretty honest & careful with my words and my logic.
Humans are sentient and make choices. That's truth, not consensus.
Please try to understand this, because it's an important point that I feel you're having trouble with...
I don't have to address the is-ought dilemma because, in the philosophical sense, I'm not claiming an 'ought'. I don't believe in moral realism, so I don't believe in objective oughts. If I do use words like 'should' or 'ought', I acknowledge that I'm doing so subjectively. I don't need a free pass! In contrast, the foundation of your position is built on an objective ought. Understand?
Coming back to point 4, I’d like to see how you respond to a little example. Let’s follow the history of a rock. Until around 100,000 BCE, it just sat in the dirt untouched by humans (who are rather new at this stage). One day, Human A, believing it’s magic, picks up the rock and claims it as his. Everyone else wants it. Eventually, Human B clobbers him over the head and steals it. Then Human C beats up the latter and claims it’s his. Eventually the fighting stops.
Nobody officially acknowledges that the rock belongs to Human C, but they don’t feel like fighting. Human C willingly trades the rock to Human D, who trades it to E who trades to F, then to G and so on until we get to Human M. One day, they all get very ill and become desperate for the rock, thinking it can heal them. They all want a piece. Humans A and B have vowed to get it back by force. Meanwhile, newly arrived Humans N through S propose they share it. “What a logical idea!”
But Human M says, ‘Piss off, I traded for this. It’s MY property!’ They don’t agree. All the Humans think he should share it just a little, but he doesn’t want to. Now, here’s the hilarious part. Human M tries to convince Humans N through S of the importance of protecting him and his rock from A and B! He doesn’t want to share the rock with them, but he feels it’s their moral obligation to protect his ownership of the rock! Now here’s my question to you. Who should get/own/use the rock and why?
@dookdawg214 The rock was owned from 100,000 BC onward throughout the example. Human A owned it when he claimed it, proving the concept of property is innate even in absence of recognition. Human B stole it, so Human C treated him fairly. Human D-L did nothing wrong. Human M paid for it. Humans N-S have no claim to it whatsoever and if they care so much about justice, they can have Human B compensate Human A or M according to its traded value, or current value to whoever wants it least.
1) So you believe that just finding land and saying it's yours is good enough? Do you honestly think it's reasonable that anyone would respect such a claim? Perhaps this is proof of your weak premise. You think we 'should' respect this. But we don't. Amirite?
2) What if Human C isn't in the picture? Say, the first thief (B) was the first to trade it off. Was his trade fair? If his trade was unfair, arn't all the other trades equally tainted?
Why wouldn't it be? I found it. Nobody has a better claim, or any way to argue unless I tell them where it is. If they even care. Sealand is an amusing example of something similar.
Human C was irrelevant. Human D did nothing wrong. Human E-M made fair transactions. Taking the rock from Human M at this point would be unjust, since now he has neither the rock nor the objects traded for it. Humans N-S have no claim over the rock at all. Human B should compensate A or M, as I said.
@dookdawg214 No, my position really doesn't depend on an objective ought. You tried to make this connection in your 2nd post on this thread. What you seem to have trouble with is that it's not even possible for government to regulate these traits.
I offered that humans ought respect their own nature as a separate point, for emphasis. That ought doesn't need to be objective, although it might as well be.
Hypothetical regulations - which give your posts meaning - depend on several is-oughts.
@dookdawg214 Your oughts are only semantically subjective when you say 'we' instead of 'I'. Even then, subjective oughts and disbelief in moral realism don't make you immune to the is-ought problem or the need for rational justification. I could replicate your logic on every potential action that infringes on freedom: "You're saying x is y so we ought to z, but I'm not claiming an ought." In which case I'd be arguing an ought-not from an is, and you'd be arguing an ought from an is-not.
If you don't believe in an objective ought, then explain to me your argument for Libertarianism. Currently in the USA, almost nobody wants such a system, so the burden of argument is on you. Why *should* (that's a subjective should I'm using) anyone take your ideology seriously? I'm constantly admitting that my view is not objectively based. You telling me I have to establish an ought is BS. I don't.
I don't need an 'objective ought' if that's even possible. I'm claiming an 'is': There are things you *cannot* regulate. It has nothing to do with 'ought'. As a separate point, I can suggest - as you have - that we ought or ought not do certain things, or indeed that we already do certain things, on account of this.
I didn't say you 'have to establish an ought'. I said you're already establishing many. These are not immune to the is-ought problem simply because they're 'subjective'.
You don't get it. If I don't believe in moral realism, then I'm acknowlidging that an objective 'ought' is impossible. No statement out of my mouth can ever attempt to leverage one and, likewise, I'm never forced to prove one. They're make-believe. If I use words like 'ought' or 'should', as I've already said repeatedly, my usage is subjective. Do I misunderstand you? Do you think you have inherent rights or not? If you think your rights are inherent, then you're asserting moral realism.
No, *you* don't get it. You aren't understanding what I'm saying because you're stuck reading your own script to your own pretenses.
You are not immune to the is-ought problem. It is not more logical to say "I ought to do X because of Y." than it is to say "You ought to do X because of Y." They both commit the same error. It doesn't matter if it's objective or subjective: Y does not carry instructions about X.
For the Nth time, there are things you *cannot* regulate. This is not an 'ought'. I can propose, in addition, that you ought, ought not, or already do certain things. I can hinge that ought on the objective 'is', a universally subjective 'is' or an individually subjective 'is' and in any of those cases my argument will be no more is-ought violating than yours.
Totally wrong. Regulations don't depend on moral realism at all. The proof for this is that many laws (past and present) contradict each other. That means that they're detached from objectivity (two opposite laws can't both be morally right). I repeat, I recognize all laws as subjectively based. I'm a moral relativist.
Is-ought is not about moral realism, it's about the logic of extracting value from value-neutral statements in general. You're not immune to this simply because your values are 'subjective' - especially when your allegedly universal 'subjectivity' is a euphemism for objectivity in a Jungian sort of way. Laws do depend on at least the perception of moral realism, but people can derive different 'oughts' from an 'is'. In relativism, reality and perception aren't meaningfully distinct.
Wrong. That's exactly what an ought needs. Sure, you can assert an ought as a tautological statement ('If you want to win the race, you SHOULD run the fastest.'). But if you're making a value call that doesn't work tautologically ('The State should stop taxing me') then you require objectivity. I think murder is wrong but, in a philosophical sense, I can never say 'People shouldn't murder each other.' If I say such a thing, I'm saying it subjectively. I feel that way and I'm happy others do too.
The is-ought problem is not about moral realism, it is about logic mechanics. You're fixated on its application in a specific context and not looking at what it actually is. Any person can derive value from value-neutral statements. Whether they believe in moral realism or relativism doesn't change that they've produced an instruction from nothing.
You bring up "The state should NOT" but not the preceding "The state should" which your own logic works against.
I don't know what else I can do to make this clear for you. You have suggested numerous times (with different wording) that your view is grounded in moral realism. If you believe you have inherent rights or freedoms, then it's up to you to prove it. On the other hand, if you admit that your desire for a Libertarian society is as subjectively based as mine, then we're able to agree and this debate is over. Do you agree or disagree?
@dookdawg214 There are things you can't regulate. It has nothing to do with 'ought' or moral realism. That's all I need to show that some rights are inherent. I can go further and add that some other things are prohibitively difficult to regulate and might as well be inherent, or could be regulated in theory but would fail for opposing human nature, or still more which ought not be regulated for sociological reasons greater-than-or-equal-to your own. You only argued with the last of these.
5) It's not a fallacy to acknowledge what you said:
"if I selfishly attempt to acquire .. resources, it's up to the collective force .. to take .. it away from me. That's why we force people to pay taxes."
5.1) "Selfishly" is a (negative) value judgement.
5.2) Forced confiscation is a corrective action.
5.3) "That's why" indicates causality.
5.4) Punishment [puhn-ish-muhnt] (-noun): a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
5) I don't want to use the word 'punishment' because many, if not most, people, I believe, view the word as retributive justice (like, eye for an eye). Because this is not at all what I mean, I find using the word dangerous. In any case, I think you fully understand what I'm calling 'force'. If, in your mind, you think the word 'punishment' is fitting, then you may consider it punishment.
5) You certainly *were* using it as 'retributive justice' - you don't call someone selfish and use it to justify taking away their things for any other reason. You may not want the imperious baggage that comes with this usage, but that is exactly what is happening. They allegedly did something 'wrong', so you're confiscating their property without compensation.
4) No, one gang. Your central planning takes the property of every person or group and defines it to the 'collective' or 'public' - IE, the State, whether or not it ever belonged to that state to begin with. Just because one gang (A family or company) acquired some resource doesn't mean another gang (the state) magically gains possession of it. 'Society' has never earned anything, individuals have. If I dig on my own land, I'm not 'borrowing' anything from you. Globalism is worse.
4) You keep assuming you own stuff. Why should we accept what you think you own? You may have traded for what you have, but if you go back a ways, before the willing exchange of these goods, they were acquired through force. The brute force used to be (A) tribes of warriors with no effective State to defend against them. That force has been overpowered by (B) a social majority, which tries to be more fair. You're against B, yet you think B should protect you from A! You can't have it both ways!
4) If 'B' won't protect me from 'B', it's not protecting me from 'A'. You define them separately, but fail to distinguish them in practice. All that's left is 'A' so that will also have to be my claim of why you should accept what I think I own..
Furthermore, if a person or company can't rightfully own property, the State can't rightfully own it either.
You're trying to ignore reality. The State we have today grew strong thanks to things like social cohesion and taxation. It's a social contract. You want to accept the benefits of this contract (protect me from bandits) but not the payment terms (progressive taxes). You should get it out of your head that you own things. Ownership without mass recognition is artificial. No one owns, everyone uses, society (via the State) manages. That's where we are today.
4) How does anything I said above 'ignore reality'? Your 'State-Society' isn't distinct from any other gang. The only difference is that you think they can define everything into their possession while simultaneously denying the concept of ownership for everyone else. If they refuse to protect or even recognize my property, they're not 'protecting me from bandits' at all, they *are* bandits, and they violate your so-called 'contract'.
It's really hard to track these comments now. They're all over the place. I'll do my best to find the ones that haven't already been beaten to death...
What I'm trying to teach you about ownership is the following: what you own depends on what people recognize as yours. If people don't recognize that you fully own your land, then your ownership is artificial.
4) False. What I own depends on my recognition of it as mine:
- In mass-absence, this is sufficient.
- In mass-ignorance, this is sufficient.
- In mass-indifference, this is sufficient.
- In mass-tolerance, this is sufficient.
- In mass-recognition, this is sufficient.
- In mass-respect, this is sufficient.
etc.
It is *only* controversial when you introduce somone who makes a contrary claim of ownership. In your case, by denying the validity of *all* ownership claims but their own.
Actually it does. As I showed, it is sufficient in every case except the last one. The first (and Human A) prove that property & ownership exist in absence of mass-recognition which defeats your claim outright. The 3rd and 4th show that this claim is valid by default. The 5th and 6th show that an informed society reinforce the existing claim. Even animals recognize ownership. It's pretty much a consequence of identity.
In contrast, you didn't produce any actual argument at all.
You ignored my question before. If there is only one thief (Human B) and he trades to Human C, is the trade fair? And say, 10 more trades happen after that (to D, E, F, etc)... are those trades fair, tainted, partially fair? If you think they're fair, I'd like to hear why.
B took it from A, converting it via trade with D (now C). C-L did nothing wrong and ended as they started. M gave goods to L for the rock. If the goal is for N-S to mitigate the injustice & ownership claims between A, B & M:
Rock value = max(min(value to A, value to M), sale value B to C).
If (value to A > value to M), B pays M max(Rock value, sale value L to M). Give rock back to A.
Again, you totally ignore the question. Was the initial trade from B to C a fair transaction in your opinion? And let's say, after A was robbed, he died. But he has children A1 and A2. Does B owe anything to these offspring?
I didn't ignore it, wtf? I told you twice, but I'll explain again. B stole the rock. He traded with C, so now B owns something from C which was of equal or greater value to him than the rock, which he should not own. C did nothing wrong at all. The result is identical to C-L trading among themselves, and B trading directly with M.
'Was the trade fair' is like asking 'Is a zebra white!?'
If B killed A, his debt to A1 & A2 (etc..) would take a lifetime to repay, so yes.
2) It still assumes that the means was illicit in a way which justifies force.
3) Society cannot define what is too much for me because they cannot know my needs. They cannot know my desires either, and that is equally important unless you intend to reduce people to a minimalistic slave state. They cannot properly regulate the growth of my industry, they can't plan my contingencies, and they can't adapt to changing pressures in a way which benefits me. Capitalism is much better.
2) I'm not going to keep spending time on this word. You want to attach a meaning that I don't accept. Some people 'end up with' things by inheriting them. They weren't illicit in their action; at least, not intentionally.
3) No, we can't perfectly calculate your needs. But we do the best we can. We have a good idea of how much is too much. As I've admitted repeatedly, this measurement stick requires subjective application. When socieity considers it's taking too much, it should adjust.
2) This isn't a problem with words, it is a problem with concepts. You have made the assumption that gaining possession was wrong, and that it is therefore okay to take it
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy has a personality disorder, People in power have this grandiose sense of power & think they can get away with anything. Very hard to get rid of these disorders. There R drugs that can deal with it, don't know if it ever goes away. This guy sends out crotch photos of himself? Women don't want to see these type of photos! He risks his marriage, career. Deep reasons for this behavior . Hes a political geek that wormed his way in & has nothing to fall back on. Get rid of him.
onstageagain 8 months ago
media supports weiner said media is focusing on him to much,while at the sametime there wheeling 1000s of s.palan emails out to find nothing,nothing liberal media leftwing hit squad. NOW LIBERAL MEDIA IS IN SUPPORT OF THE WEINER AND HE USED THE MEDIA SHAMED THE MEDIA,MADE FUN OF THE MEDIA.HE USED YOU! THIS IS CALLED Kool-Aid* DRINKING, MEDIA BIAS & B.S
hotrod4you2 8 months ago
you're a dumb ass who thinks flat taxes work for everyone. you're a total idiot.
Xytos 8 months ago
@Xytos Instead of name calling how about telling us what YOU would suggest for taxation, and if there is a system that works for EVERYONE ??
ITILII 8 months ago
@ITILII learning math is hard, but that doesn't keep a normal person from learning it. learning english is hard, but that doesn't prevent a normal person from learning it. progressive taxes is fairest form of tax. it is not half has hard as learning the multiplication table or english grammar. the reason to abandon progressive tax because it's hard is pure stupidity. that's like saying let's not use computers because despite its advantages, it's learning curve is too high.
Xytos 8 months ago
*LOL* Look how foolish the liberals look now... because of weinergate
just 2 sample vids ...of liberals thinking there was overwhelming evidence Weiner was hacked.
v=ohDOCjmSlko&NR=1
v=t3BPnEwcfvo&feature=feedf_more
runsaber1 8 months ago
Ron Paul cheats on his wife daily with Islamofascists like Osama Bin Laden and Gadaffi by promising to help them in their campaigns of terror.
ProgressiveInAmerica 8 months ago
he also probably got kiddie porn on his computer from those underage girls he was following on tweeter one is 16 from Ca. there are a few others. another is 17 from delaware. hahaha he is fucked! The democrats are fighting for him to resign cuz he probably shared his kiddie porn with all the other democrats & they don't want an investiation of Weiner to be traced to them. better idea tho: Weiner & the whole democrat party including 0bama resign from office and the economy wil instantly improve.
runsaber1 8 months ago 2
I know this doesn't have much to do with your arguments, but its refreshing to see you behaving this way rather than the way you were say.... a year or so ago? Just saying.
13lackLight 8 months ago
I'm part of that one percent of high school students who considers themselves conservative or Libertarian.
LEFT4BASS 8 months ago
@LEFT4BASS I'm not an American, so the following question is just genuine curiosity: 1% conservative or libertarian, including ancaps? Really so low? How many in your class? No one but you?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t I'm actually kind of both. I mostly agree with Libertarian stances except abortion, which I am against. There are 400 students in my school. Most are not into politics so most would be non-partisans. If I was to ask around the school, 90% probably would not be able to explain what Libertarians believe and 60% probably would have probably never heard of the Libertarian party.
LEFT4BASS 8 months ago
@LEFT4BASS Ok, that's pretty bad. Is this an urban area? Public school?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t Actually, it's a rural area that generally leans right-wing. Yes it's public school. Many of them will probably choose a side eventually.
LEFT4BASS 8 months ago
OMG, you're such a square OP. Did you actually say hacking is a serious crime? Are you saying that, "The internet is serious business?"
jsmith224455 8 months ago
Why can't Weiner be like Boehner?
davidwgair 8 months ago
I'm just wondering why anyone cares this guy sent pictures of his dick to some bitch. . .
OatSharpener 8 months ago
@OatSharpener Because lot's of people have no lives. The only way i would find the story interesting would be if Weiner was some sort of notorious prude. If he lied about something that actually mattered to the public or his office then it might be important, but honestly it's just childish crap.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 8 months ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Yeah, he shouldn't have lied, he should have simply pointed out it's no-one's business or concern but his and this woman's.
I'd be interested in the story, as it would point to his character and hypocrasy, were he some kind of ted haggart, social conservative who never shut up about marriage and all that but he isn't.
OatSharpener 8 months ago
this is amazing the congress fails the people and all they can do is get him for sending a picture thats amazing you all deseve the hell coming to you
tomanyasses 8 months ago
There nothing worse than a lying, progressive degenerate, Democrat perverts, a self-hating white Jew rat. Anthony, his wife, Hillary and Bill can tweet pictures to themselves for all I care. Some day maybe progressives will be sent to their sewer drains where they came from. Having said that, I support Israel, they have a right to exist.
us4000ad 8 months ago
@us4000ad so how long have you been a democrat degenerate
tomanyasses 8 months ago
Is there a conservative/libertarian point of view?
TheAthiCon 8 months ago
Libtard districts vote for iomoral unprincipaled people.....I hope Weiner stays put....the GOP will kick him for the next 18 months and the leftists will all be painted with the same brush
robbb661 8 months ago
....number one thing about this is that...WOMEN ARE WHORES....WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS ..YOU GET TO TALK TO THEM AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS..BUT WHEN SHIT HITS THE FAN ...THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ARE THE FIRST TO COME "OUT' AGAINST YOU...
salbella50 8 months ago
How come we are all focusing so much on this? Does it really matter what a politician does in his free time? Does it matter if this man sent a picture of his junk to a woman? Does that have any impact whatsoever on his views of the economy, the wars, and any other political policies? I mean, really, is this whole nation 13 years olds in sex-ed class, giggling because someone said penis? Sex is part of human life (the cause of it) and should not be part of an argument against a politician.
triclops12 8 months ago
ANTHONY WEINER, JOHN EDWARDS, BILL CLINTON, GOD BLESS YOUR TESTOSTERONE. YOU GUYS ARE REAL MEN! TRY TO FUCK AS MUCH AS YOU CAN . PUSSY MAKES MEN REAL MEN! A MEN WHO DOESNT FUCK HAS ESTROGEN . GOD BLESS DEMOCRATS . JOHN EDWARDS MAKE MORE BABIES . CHINA FUCKS LIKE THERE IS NO TOMOROW, DEMOCRATS TRY TO FUCK AND MAKE BABIES, FUCK CHINA WE WILL BEAT CHINA.WE SHOULD MAKE BABIES! CHINESE SELL CHEAP THONGS AND G-STRINGS TO AMERICAN WOMEN TO MAKE THEM INFERTILE, AMERICAN WOMEN WEAR COTON PANTIES, ONLY!
democratsaresmart 8 months ago
Lieing under office is a crime right? not saying this guy did for sure (I believe in innocent until proven guilty), but just curious, I've wondered this before.
themeleed 8 months ago
Can you upload your debate in the HS. Love to see that.
einstini15 8 months ago
I DEMAND TO SEE THE ERECTILE FUNCTION TWEET!!! WEINER IS A PUBLIC SERVANT AND THE PEOPLE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SEE ALL OF HIS JUNK HE TWEETED.
Boris82much 8 months ago
boooiiiiing
daddyyy58 8 months ago
Elect the architect of Weinergate president of Afgaffestan!!
ReElectBarack0bama 8 months ago 13
Comment removed
ReElectBarack0bama 8 months ago 6
Your epiphany was long as fuuuuck.
TheNismojunky 8 months ago
@TheNismojunky "Fuuuuck" is only seven letters long. So you're saying it was short?
Supermassively 8 months ago
Who cares if Weiner sent that picture. I could care less about his personal life. If you want someone to resign for that, your asking for big government. If you want government to leave the economy alone, but you want government to control peoples' personal lives. Hypocracy much?
CesarManiaX 8 months ago
@CesarManiaX ....Cause he lied about it...and when a person becomes a politition, their lives are public
TheRetiredtrucker 8 months ago
@CesarManiaX Anybody with ANY sense should care if a politician is caught lying!! These idiots are destroying our republic and freedom with their bullsh@t. He's a freedom hating, 2nd ammendment erroding jack-ass..a tyrrant! And dumb people like you don't even realize that it's these jerks who are supposed to be protecting our rights, instead they are lying to your face and snapping shots of their di@ks and sending them to tons of women..while the are married! Your comment doesn't even make sense
smilemaker808 8 months ago
@CesarManiaX I'm inclined to agree. I would even say that lying in this particular situation is somewhat understandable given that the topic is no one's business. Of course the political climate is charged and nobody really thinks about the act itself, people are smearing, and that's very harmful. Every time such a "scandel" is discussed it obfuscates the actual issues to debate. Of course the smearing is done on all sides.
john42t 8 months ago
He shouldn't have lied. I don't care whether or not he actually had sex with any of these women, but lying is a different story.
majesticdragoon 8 months ago
@majesticdragoon Another scumbag with no morals... Having sex with the women is lying TO HIS WIFE! There is NO different story, dummy.
smilemaker808 8 months ago
@smilemaker808
That's irrelevant to his position as politician. Same with Clinton back in the 90s, cheating on Hillary was irrelevant to his performance as a President.
You nor anyone else has any business on Weiner's personal life (although he did post a picture of himself, silly him)
majesticdragoon 8 months ago
@smilemaker808 No, lying is something else. You have to check the vocabulary curriculum for 4-year-olds again I'm afraid.
john42t 8 months ago
@majesticdragoon You know, of all the comments here, this is the only attack on Weiner that makes sense to me.
dafedge2007 8 months ago
Well it appears that you were right. Congratulations.
shchpendrop 8 months ago
Kids are easily persuaded because they're stupid. That's why they're automatically liberal without putting much thought into it. But it's also why they fall for your cheap debate tactics.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
Wiener is just a big stiff. I bet hes got a lot more coming. I'd just like to grab Wiener and jerk him around a bit, you know???
OddRobb 8 months ago
Maybe if all those people were receiving cheques from the Kock brothers and other Billionaires who want to destroy the middle class and pay no taxes, they would agree?
You know just like HTWW is paid by these astro turf organisations who pray on the stupid religous majority?
inktankPS3 8 months ago
Almost there Lee, just slow down the end of your videos a little bit more. You compress your closing too much, and the words run together. We're not in a rush dude.
Oh, do you think you can post some of those debates you mentioned? I'd enjoy hearing the Q&As.
augustc4 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't forget Chris Lee, Edwards, Gingrich, Spitzer, just to name a few.
gozips30 8 months ago
Comment removed
gozips30 8 months ago
Well, he should not worry about loosing his job, because sleezy CNN will reward him with his own show, just like their Spitzer.
The show will be called {{{ Weiner & Spitzer }}} ;D
braintnt 8 months ago
I'm more disappointed we're having a national discussion over the sanctity of Twitter than some congressman sending out photos of his junk to attractive young women.
superpoopoop 8 months ago
"Weiner" sent pictures of his johnson
to numerous women,
and lied about it.
Imagine that. A Democrat lying.
He lied.
The phucker lied.
While he didn't get a blow-job in the Oval Office, or
father a bastard child, while his wife was dying,
he lied.
bobbytiger 8 months ago 12
@bobbytiger Do you want me to make a list of Republicans? Or can you do that all by yourself?
dafedge2007 8 months ago
@dafedge2007
Of course Republicans have done similar things.
But the GOP is not currently caught in this latest lie are they?
The liberal Democrat, "Weiner" is.
bobbytiger 8 months ago
@bobbytiger OK. Got it. So we only list the latest lie... I think I understand...
No...
Wait...
Then why did you mention Clinton?
You do realise there are two high profile Republicans who have been in the news in the last month for sex scandals as well, right?
dafedge2007 8 months ago
@dafedge2007
Sure do.
But,
"the GOP is not currently caught in this latest lie are they?
The liberal Democrat, "Weiner" is.
bobbytiger 8 months ago
@bobbytiger Got it. That's why you mentioned John Edwards and Bill Clinton, right? Because they were caught in the latest lie as well.
Partisan hack...
dafedge2007 8 months ago
@bobbytiger Unlike all those republicans secretly having gay sex behind everyone's back while voting against gay marriage? Let me put it this way. If you have an IQ over 0, you will lie. People lie. If you think someone is completely honest, you are lying to yourself.
triclops12 8 months ago
@fasfsdfasd So this scandal somehow absolves Palin of her shameless lies and corruption? Keep dreaming retard. LOL
LuvChaos 8 months ago
Doing God's work.
armandx10 8 months ago
He only admitted that he did it after a week of denial and Breitbart was about to provide evidence that he was lying. What a wiener!!
spicyinmyeyesdave 8 months ago
At least he was man enough to admit what he did was wrong. We have some really stupid politicians in this country...
The0Burger0King 8 months ago
Politicians never seem to learn that lies and coverups will ALWAYS catch up with them. I liked Rep. Weiner and agreed with a lot of his policy positions, but I have no tolerance for this kind of bullshit. Fellow Democrat or not, he should resign immediately. He has disgraced himself, his family, his constituents, his party and most of all, his country.
LuvChaos 8 months ago
We all make mistakes. But if your honest what can people really say to that. The fact he lied to me and others for the pass few days makes me very angry. What a freaking moron he is. WTF is wrong with him.
darkaddict18 8 months ago
Why Em I not surprised he did it himself. Politicians are basically all liars most of the time. This is a typical idiotic thing a politician would do. I live in NYC and he should be ashamed of himself acting like this when your in high authority position. He has it coming and deserves the Embarrassment he gets. Bought shame to NYC. Fooling and lying to peoples faces. I think it just got so big he
could not cover it up. If he was at least honest from the get go I could have more
respect for him.
darkaddict18 8 months ago
and now this...
ap: NY Rep. Weiner admits he sent lewd pix; won't quit
cristoballs 8 months ago
He should've told the truth from the get go. Sure, he might run into some marital trouble. Possibly get some counseling that could still end up in divorce. Who cares? People vote for you to DO YOUR JOB. Not worry about your private life. That's my two cents. The media should move on, but we all know the public loves scandals and rumors. No matter how small (that's not meant as a joke).
Chronolyse 8 months ago
news on weinergate... google:
Blogger says racy pix of NY Rep. are legit
cristoballs 8 months ago
There once was a congressman name Weiner,
Who had a very contentious demeanor.
He snapped a pic of his prick,
and sent it to this chick.
Now his career has been taken to the cleaners.
philh37 8 months ago
This guy is such a fake and loser.
razornet1 8 months ago
I dont' care too much about this. I think he did get hacked, I also think it was his penis. They probably found that picture in his files, and he's too embarressed to admit that so he's just saying he doesn't know. I mean the girl said she didn't know Weiner, she's not that atractive, so it doesn't make much sense to me. If he did do he either 1. Tried to send it to someone on facebook or something and by accident send it on twitter. 2. Was drunk one night and send it. Only thing I can thnk of.
thehoffmanapprentice 8 months ago
@thehoffmanapprentice 100% agree. If dude is gonna outright lie, he will just say it isnt his wang. Seems its clearly his dick pic, but he didnt send it.
LiekABaus 8 months ago
it would be really nice if you would make a video explaining in depth both schools of thought on economics (Keynesian and Austrian) so people can decide for themselves which one they subscribe to
TheThejoseph 8 months ago
Maryland congressman Steny Hoyer on Anthony Weiner: “I told him that he needs to handle this and he needed to give the facts accurately to the public."
That tweeted picture looked as though Weiner had been handling it quite enough already.
hookalakah 8 months ago
Why can't he just use the word 'certainty?' Why does he have to go all out and use 'certitude?'
HellnoObama 8 months ago
I just don't care what politicians do in their private time. Im only concerned about the policies they influence.
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07
Oh, how noble. So, you want a lunatic who holds power over voting where all of our $ goes to be sending cock pics over the internet to a woman young enough to be his daughter? He's obviously an idiot and so are you.
btwall60 8 months ago
@btwall60 No he's an animal, like you and me and we are meant to continue the species. It is a biological imperative and as such we do crazy things because of it. He's not a lunatic, the same way gay bashing right wingers who are caught at gay bars are not lunatics, just repressed by our puritanical society. Though the right wingers are a bit more hypocritical as they are the bastions of "family values" what crap. "Goes to be sending cock picks?" Excellent grammar. It wasn't on our dime.
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07 He said "where all our money goes" not "goes to be sending cock picks."
"Humans are animals" is not a very good argument for anything. We are not like other animals, who do lots of things we don't do in civilization, which is not an animal.
When Republicans get caught in these scandals, they lose the support of their voters and resign. When Democrats get caught they fight tooth and nail to stay in power, while their supporters defend them beyond all reason and attack everything else.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago 2
@NobodyImportant2008 @beenz07
"Oh, how noble. So, you want a lunatic who holds power over voting where all of our $ goes to be sending cock pics over the internet to a woman young enough to be his daughter? He's obviously an idiot and so are you." Oh really? because there is no punctuation in there separating them as sentences or even clauses. In fact he said exactly that. We eat shit and fuck like everything else. Did asshole resign after having an affair in Brazil?
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07 Still doesn't change what I said. I had no problem figuring out he was saying "where all our money goes" and it reads just fine without a comma. In fact, you have to add imaginary breaks to render it as you said. "Goes to be sending cock pics" was your creation. You're just being pedantic. At best your argument is reduced to "lulz. hee ain't yoozing satesfieing gramerz! wat stooped..!?" and all you've done is emphasize the irrelevance of your comment.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008 Our societal "values" r derived from bits of antiquated desert scrolls.I don't defend any politician because none of them come close to representing me.Not everything is Democrat or Republican.The belief that Republicans have more integrity than Democrats clearly illustrates how your brand of favoritism permeates your mentality. We are not as evolved as we think we are and you all have to stop pretending to know how we should and should not behave. Fuck you and good day sir.
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07 Really? I thought they were evolutionary adaptations for our collective benefit? You should probably notify your friends Judeo-christianity was the source of morality afterall. They'll be so embarrassed. If you assume they came from scrolls, they were still written by 'animals' more insightful than you. Who asks an anarchic sociopath living in an incubator for philosophical wisdom? All you can do is generalize-from-self, maybe you *are* less evolved. Just be silent, beast. Let men talk.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
Comment removed
backchodes 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NobodyImportant2008 If you think the bible is everyone's source of morality, maybe you're the one who lives in an incubator? 99% of the bible has nothing to do with collective benefit. Universal healthcare was written for our collective benefit. If you don't understand evolution you shouldn't talk about it.
backchodes 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008 What the fuck are you talking about? Evolutionary adaptations? What do property laws and rape laws have to do with evolution? Evolutionarily rape is beneficial. I'm a moral skeptic and Im calling bullshit. As though all anarchists desire chaos and murder. We are bacteria clinging to a pebble hurling through space. Our values and morals are complete fiction derrived to control the masses. Im not saying they are completely unnecessary, Im saying they are completely bs.
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07 Lol, go ask an atheist where morality comes from if you don't believe me. How could you shoot your allies in the back like this?
My point wasn't that all anarchists desire chaos and murder - or even that all sociopaths do. Just that particular anarchists - such as nihilistic sociopaths with a chronic disregard for the rights and values of others - are not often consulted for philosophical insight, and with good reason. The same reason beasts should not be debating morality with man.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008 Sociologicaly, our morals have come about over time. That doesn't mean they are essential in the development of a highly functioning society. Biological evolution is what I assumed you were referring to. My bad? It seems like a safe assumption. However you have to understand that rights are imaginary as well. Carlin has a great bit about no rights or unlimited rights. Value judgments are completely subjective meaning total relativism.
beenz07 8 months ago
@beenz07 The stock argument is that humans are not a tabula rasa, morality is hard-wired into our brains (yes, biologically) from birth, and civilization and laws merely reflect this innate human morality. I didn't invent this argument. It is used to counter theist claims that atheism is nihilistic, which is why I laughed.
Insisting that rights and values are imaginary doesn't help you very much. You might as well deny logic and entity while you're at it. The Essenes were more evolved than you.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Rights and values aren't imaginary, but they're hard to define and agree on. Like property rights: who gets to decide? Most borders were fought over with blood. Does that make them right? Does time make things right? Military might?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 You're thinking of rights as a separate and agreed upon privilege given by a government to it's citizens. IE, Civil\Constitutional rights. These are power distribution. Low power distance societies need to be fairly distributed as any citizen is a potential threat. High power distance societies have no need to negotiate. Beenz is talking about all rights, especially so called natural rights, IE, Life & Liberty. Humans are born free. No force yet known can restrain the truth forever.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
People are born free (uh, sort of), but that doesn't make it their right. The word "right" carries a lot of baggage with it. That's the problem. It infers that, somehow, society *should* respect it. But then we're forced into a conversation on meta-ethics. Is there an objective law giver? I don't believe so. As people, only we, en masse, can decide what is a right. I realize that "mob rule" has issues, but for now it's the best we have, and it has yielded the best results.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 Now you're playing with etymology. 'Deserved, entitled, permitted, etc' is not the same concept as either 'Correct, proper' or 'The east side of an object or plane when facing north.'
It's pretty absurd to say someone doesn't have a right to self-determination. Their very existence demonstrates ownership and you really can't separate it from them. For the sake of argument you can assume a government permits it, but it requires no force to maintain, and infinite force to suppress.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I'm not trying to play with words. I genuinely don't believe in natural rights. I believe that rights can only exist through a collective agreement. Should you be able to smoke pot if you want? I say, yes, you should. But I also recognize that my acknowledgement of your 'right' is subjective. You were born with the ability to inhale what you want, but not with a 'right' to do so. Without a human-made legal system, a 'right' can't even exist.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 Again you're looking at artificial constructs. The 'right' to smoke pot depends on you having it in your possession, so maintaining that right requires an exponential force and can be denied forever by failing to exercise it. In contrast, simply being born gives you self-determination. It's part of the person. Laws exist precisely for that reason. Government can't survive in defiance of nature and humanity - except on paper - and so you have Liberals. =p
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You're just asserting things without making a case. Laws exist precisely because we're born with self-determination? Where do you get that? No! Laws exist for various reasons. Maybe you meant to say "laws SHOULD exist because...", but that would be your opinion. As far as government not being able to survive in defiance of nature and humanity... many of the functions we give to government are based on our NATURAL desire to live in a peaceful, healthy, productive society.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 Next time you don't understand what I'm saying, don't assume it's without reason. Laws restrict freedoms people already have. Self-determination makes them necessary. Common sense.
Your assertion that governments are given functions by our natural desire for peace and security helps my case. You also said earlier that 'right' implies society should respect it. Should humans respect their own nature?
Last, if humans have natural desires at all, it defeats what Beenz is saying.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
1- 'Laws restrict freedoms people already have.' Explain how you're defining 'freedom'. You're using a loaded word. Depending on your usage, I don't think I agree that we're born with freedoms.
2- 'Should humans respect their own nature?' Again, a loaded word: 'should'. It's in my nature to want to go grab a woman in the street and have sex with her without her consent. Do you think everyone should respect that aspect of my nature?
3- I didn't read any of Beenz comments.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 As for "2": Wow, I would call myself a person too honest for my own good, but this... you have my respect. Out of curiosity, can you express such views to peers in real life? Are you American? Is a sentence like that social suicide in the US or not?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t
Regarding expressing this to real-life peers… that depends on the discussion I’m having and the person’s ability to understand what I mean. I adhere to social NORMS and LAWS like everyone else. That means I shake hands because everyone else does. I wear ties to weddings. I chew with my mouth closed. I also restrain my natural urges for the better of society and for the individual(s) in question. I don't expect humans to respect natural behaviors that hurt society.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 1) It's not a 'loaded word.' We don't make laws to restrict things people already can't do. Freedom is potential action. Self-determination is a right. It gives you the freedom to do bad things. Therefore: Laws.
2) I didn't ask if everyone should respect your nature, but if they ought respect their own. Your nature is incomplete. Empathy usually outweighs rape, else you'd plan, bystanders would help you, etc. It's illegal because people do respect their common nature.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You're still making assertions with no sound argument. You assert that freedom and self-determination are rights. I don't agree. Putting that aside for a second though, do you believe human nature is sufficient to not need laws? You do realize, don't you, that we used to have it that way? It didn't work. People fight, steal and hog up resources, which requires more fighting and stealing. Thus, over time, it's NATURAL for societies to evolve into a social-contract system.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 I didn't assert that any ambiguous freedom was a right or make assertions without sound argument. The purpose of "Self-determination is a right" was specifically to provide a distinction between Freedoms and Rights. How is:
1) Freedom is potential action.
2) Self-determination gives you freedom to do bad things.
3) Laws don't restrict impossible things.
'With no sound argument'? "Laws exist (restricting freedoms people already have) because of self-determination" as I said before.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Man is rational. Some have an aberrant nature.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008 Some men are rational, other are not. Very good quote by Burke.
john42t 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
What's the point of the Burke quote? I agree with it. Society can't function properly without control. The less control one has over his own selfish desires, the more control is needed from the collective force. For example, if I selfishly attempt to acquire a grossly disproportionate share of resources, it's up to the collective force (Burke's controlling power without) to take some of it away from me. That's why we force people to pay taxes.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 The quote was in answer to 'is human nature sufficient to forgo law?' Good, moral, rational people do not need it. Not all people are these things.
'selfishly .. acquire .. disproportionate share' makes a variety of assumptions about motive, method, proportion & property:
1) 'Selfish' is not illegal or innately immoral, if even true.
2) 'Acquire' does not mean 'steal.'
3) 'Proportionate' is ambiguous.
4) 'Share' assumes property is collective.
5) Taxes aren't about punishing wealth.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
1) I didn't say 'selfish' is illegal; however, most believe it is immoral (thus collective restraint)
2) I didn't say 'acquire' meant steal
3) For a 500-carctr comment box, 'proportionate' was the best I could do; maybe 'reasonable' is better, but requires discussion
4) Most 'ownership' of the earth and its resources happened by gang force, so we're essentially trading goods that not everyone considers truly ours
5) I didn't say 'punish'; I said 'force' (I'm pro tax)
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
1) Most don't believe that. Eating & sleeping are selfish. All is vanity, etc. Being inconsiderate is rude, but immoral to the point of justifying force is entirely different. Nobody enforces altruism.
2) Your insinuation was that acquisition was illicit in a way which justified force & restraint.
3) 'Reasonable' is still ambiguous.
4) One 'gang' didn't magically inherit the property of every other gang & entity.
5) You said 'that's why we .. force .. taxes' indicating causation.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
1) No. Everyone realizes that eating and sleeping are necessary. Also, there are levels of immorality. Not holding the door for an old lady is not the same as robbing her. Yes, enforcing altruism is logically impossible. But forced sharing is possible, efficient and beneficial to society.
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
2) Take 'have' or 'end up with' if you prefer; works the same for me.
3) You're right, but this is the key part! Society decides what is too much. I realize, a collective measuring stick isn't easy to agree on, but we can shoot for averages. In place of moral realism, mass rule is the best we have (despite its gross imperfections).
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
4) Not one gang – many. My point is, we're constantly trading goods and resources that are artificially owned. Everything is a trade of a trade of a trade, etc. But if you trace them back far enough, traded objects were once claimed from nothing and/or confiscated by force. Where the Libertarian believes he owns something, the rationalist understands he’s borrowing from society. That’s why we don’t mind taxes. It’s part of a contract that Libertarians are forced into.
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
5) Fallacy of equivocation. Forcing taxes does not equate to punishment anymore than forcing my kids to eat their vegetables does. I recognize that taxes are forced on people. But that doesn’t make it punishment. Progressive taxes are logical. You may consider them as punishment, but that’s not the intention.
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
My biggest arguments with Libertarians aren’t about economical principles or facts. I typically agree with most of the facts Lee points out. Where I differ is that Libertarians attempt to sidestep the is-ought dilemma. You don’t get a free pass on that. You also play loose with words like ‘freedom’ (which is question begging). I can admit that my views are subjective and hinge on popular acceptance. But Libertarians push theirs as objective truths, which is philosophically dishonest.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
That's barely relevant. You're not addressing the is-ought dilemma either and your arguments for universal collective actions are much worse than mine which require one or fewer. If I don't get a 'free pass' neither do you. I also responded to 'is-ought', in the thread with Beenz.
I defined Freedom when you asked, so please don't start that B.S. rhetoric again. I'm pretty honest & careful with my words and my logic.
Humans are sentient and make choices. That's truth, not consensus.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
Please try to understand this, because it's an important point that I feel you're having trouble with...
I don't have to address the is-ought dilemma because, in the philosophical sense, I'm not claiming an 'ought'. I don't believe in moral realism, so I don't believe in objective oughts. If I do use words like 'should' or 'ought', I acknowledge that I'm doing so subjectively. I don't need a free pass! In contrast, the foundation of your position is built on an objective ought. Understand?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
Coming back to point 4, I’d like to see how you respond to a little example. Let’s follow the history of a rock. Until around 100,000 BCE, it just sat in the dirt untouched by humans (who are rather new at this stage). One day, Human A, believing it’s magic, picks up the rock and claims it as his. Everyone else wants it. Eventually, Human B clobbers him over the head and steals it. Then Human C beats up the latter and claims it’s his. Eventually the fighting stops.
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
Nobody officially acknowledges that the rock belongs to Human C, but they don’t feel like fighting. Human C willingly trades the rock to Human D, who trades it to E who trades to F, then to G and so on until we get to Human M. One day, they all get very ill and become desperate for the rock, thinking it can heal them. They all want a piece. Humans A and B have vowed to get it back by force. Meanwhile, newly arrived Humans N through S propose they share it. “What a logical idea!”
Continued…
dookdawg214 8 months ago
But Human M says, ‘Piss off, I traded for this. It’s MY property!’ They don’t agree. All the Humans think he should share it just a little, but he doesn’t want to. Now, here’s the hilarious part. Human M tries to convince Humans N through S of the importance of protecting him and his rock from A and B! He doesn’t want to share the rock with them, but he feels it’s their moral obligation to protect his ownership of the rock! Now here’s my question to you. Who should get/own/use the rock and why?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
In your answer, I'd also like to hear at what point the rock became truly owned by someone and why.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 The rock was owned from 100,000 BC onward throughout the example. Human A owned it when he claimed it, proving the concept of property is innate even in absence of recognition. Human B stole it, so Human C treated him fairly. Human D-L did nothing wrong. Human M paid for it. Humans N-S have no claim to it whatsoever and if they care so much about justice, they can have Human B compensate Human A or M according to its traded value, or current value to whoever wants it least.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Back to the rock analogy...
1) So you believe that just finding land and saying it's yours is good enough? Do you honestly think it's reasonable that anyone would respect such a claim? Perhaps this is proof of your weak premise. You think we 'should' respect this. But we don't. Amirite?
2) What if Human C isn't in the picture? Say, the first thief (B) was the first to trade it off. Was his trade fair? If his trade was unfair, arn't all the other trades equally tainted?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
Why wouldn't it be? I found it. Nobody has a better claim, or any way to argue unless I tell them where it is. If they even care. Sealand is an amusing example of something similar.
Human C was irrelevant. Human D did nothing wrong. Human E-M made fair transactions. Taking the rock from Human M at this point would be unjust, since now he has neither the rock nor the objects traded for it. Humans N-S have no claim over the rock at all. Human B should compensate A or M, as I said.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
Comment removed
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 No, my position really doesn't depend on an objective ought. You tried to make this connection in your 2nd post on this thread. What you seem to have trouble with is that it's not even possible for government to regulate these traits.
I offered that humans ought respect their own nature as a separate point, for emphasis. That ought doesn't need to be objective, although it might as well be.
Hypothetical regulations - which give your posts meaning - depend on several is-oughts.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 Your oughts are only semantically subjective when you say 'we' instead of 'I'. Even then, subjective oughts and disbelief in moral realism don't make you immune to the is-ought problem or the need for rational justification. I could replicate your logic on every potential action that infringes on freedom: "You're saying x is y so we ought to z, but I'm not claiming an ought." In which case I'd be arguing an ought-not from an is, and you'd be arguing an ought from an is-not.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
If you don't believe in an objective ought, then explain to me your argument for Libertarianism. Currently in the USA, almost nobody wants such a system, so the burden of argument is on you. Why *should* (that's a subjective should I'm using) anyone take your ideology seriously? I'm constantly admitting that my view is not objectively based. You telling me I have to establish an ought is BS. I don't.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
I don't need an 'objective ought' if that's even possible. I'm claiming an 'is': There are things you *cannot* regulate. It has nothing to do with 'ought'. As a separate point, I can suggest - as you have - that we ought or ought not do certain things, or indeed that we already do certain things, on account of this.
I didn't say you 'have to establish an ought'. I said you're already establishing many. These are not immune to the is-ought problem simply because they're 'subjective'.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
You don't get it. If I don't believe in moral realism, then I'm acknowlidging that an objective 'ought' is impossible. No statement out of my mouth can ever attempt to leverage one and, likewise, I'm never forced to prove one. They're make-believe. If I use words like 'ought' or 'should', as I've already said repeatedly, my usage is subjective. Do I misunderstand you? Do you think you have inherent rights or not? If you think your rights are inherent, then you're asserting moral realism.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
No, *you* don't get it. You aren't understanding what I'm saying because you're stuck reading your own script to your own pretenses.
You are not immune to the is-ought problem. It is not more logical to say "I ought to do X because of Y." than it is to say "You ought to do X because of Y." They both commit the same error. It doesn't matter if it's objective or subjective: Y does not carry instructions about X.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
For the Nth time, there are things you *cannot* regulate. This is not an 'ought'. I can propose, in addition, that you ought, ought not, or already do certain things. I can hinge that ought on the objective 'is', a universally subjective 'is' or an individually subjective 'is' and in any of those cases my argument will be no more is-ought violating than yours.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Totally wrong. Regulations don't depend on moral realism at all. The proof for this is that many laws (past and present) contradict each other. That means that they're detached from objectivity (two opposite laws can't both be morally right). I repeat, I recognize all laws as subjectively based. I'm a moral relativist.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
Is-ought is not about moral realism, it's about the logic of extracting value from value-neutral statements in general. You're not immune to this simply because your values are 'subjective' - especially when your allegedly universal 'subjectivity' is a euphemism for objectivity in a Jungian sort of way. Laws do depend on at least the perception of moral realism, but people can derive different 'oughts' from an 'is'. In relativism, reality and perception aren't meaningfully distinct.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
Wrong. That's exactly what an ought needs. Sure, you can assert an ought as a tautological statement ('If you want to win the race, you SHOULD run the fastest.'). But if you're making a value call that doesn't work tautologically ('The State should stop taxing me') then you require objectivity. I think murder is wrong but, in a philosophical sense, I can never say 'People shouldn't murder each other.' If I say such a thing, I'm saying it subjectively. I feel that way and I'm happy others do too.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
The is-ought problem is not about moral realism, it is about logic mechanics. You're fixated on its application in a specific context and not looking at what it actually is. Any person can derive value from value-neutral statements. Whether they believe in moral realism or relativism doesn't change that they've produced an instruction from nothing.
You bring up "The state should NOT" but not the preceding "The state should" which your own logic works against.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
I don't know what else I can do to make this clear for you. You have suggested numerous times (with different wording) that your view is grounded in moral realism. If you believe you have inherent rights or freedoms, then it's up to you to prove it. On the other hand, if you admit that your desire for a Libertarian society is as subjectively based as mine, then we're able to agree and this debate is over. Do you agree or disagree?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 There are things you can't regulate. It has nothing to do with 'ought' or moral realism. That's all I need to show that some rights are inherent. I can go further and add that some other things are prohibitively difficult to regulate and might as well be inherent, or could be regulated in theory but would fail for opposing human nature, or still more which ought not be regulated for sociological reasons greater-than-or-equal-to your own. You only argued with the last of these.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Some things can't be regulated. This is true.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
5) It's not a fallacy to acknowledge what you said:
"if I selfishly attempt to acquire .. resources, it's up to the collective force .. to take .. it away from me. That's why we force people to pay taxes."
5.1) "Selfishly" is a (negative) value judgement.
5.2) Forced confiscation is a corrective action.
5.3) "That's why" indicates causality.
5.4) Punishment [puhn-ish-muhnt] (-noun): a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
5) I don't want to use the word 'punishment' because many, if not most, people, I believe, view the word as retributive justice (like, eye for an eye). Because this is not at all what I mean, I find using the word dangerous. In any case, I think you fully understand what I'm calling 'force'. If, in your mind, you think the word 'punishment' is fitting, then you may consider it punishment.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
5) You certainly *were* using it as 'retributive justice' - you don't call someone selfish and use it to justify taking away their things for any other reason. You may not want the imperious baggage that comes with this usage, but that is exactly what is happening. They allegedly did something 'wrong', so you're confiscating their property without compensation.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I disagree and I already explained why. Number 5 is just a distraction now.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
5) You failed to show how the action, its purpose and justifications are distinct from punishment. Again:
5.1) "Selfishly" is a (negative) value judgement.
5.2) This value judgement is used to justify a forceful corrective action.
5.3) "That's why we force people to pay taxes" indicates that 5.1 and 5.2 are the cause of taxes.
5.4) Punishment means exactly that: A penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
It doesn't stop meaning this just because you don't want it to.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
4) No, one gang. Your central planning takes the property of every person or group and defines it to the 'collective' or 'public' - IE, the State, whether or not it ever belonged to that state to begin with. Just because one gang (A family or company) acquired some resource doesn't mean another gang (the state) magically gains possession of it. 'Society' has never earned anything, individuals have. If I dig on my own land, I'm not 'borrowing' anything from you. Globalism is worse.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
4) You keep assuming you own stuff. Why should we accept what you think you own? You may have traded for what you have, but if you go back a ways, before the willing exchange of these goods, they were acquired through force. The brute force used to be (A) tribes of warriors with no effective State to defend against them. That force has been overpowered by (B) a social majority, which tries to be more fair. You're against B, yet you think B should protect you from A! You can't have it both ways!
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
4) If 'B' won't protect me from 'B', it's not protecting me from 'A'. You define them separately, but fail to distinguish them in practice. All that's left is 'A' so that will also have to be my claim of why you should accept what I think I own..
Furthermore, if a person or company can't rightfully own property, the State can't rightfully own it either.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You're trying to ignore reality. The State we have today grew strong thanks to things like social cohesion and taxation. It's a social contract. You want to accept the benefits of this contract (protect me from bandits) but not the payment terms (progressive taxes). You should get it out of your head that you own things. Ownership without mass recognition is artificial. No one owns, everyone uses, society (via the State) manages. That's where we are today.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
4) How does anything I said above 'ignore reality'? Your 'State-Society' isn't distinct from any other gang. The only difference is that you think they can define everything into their possession while simultaneously denying the concept of ownership for everyone else. If they refuse to protect or even recognize my property, they're not 'protecting me from bandits' at all, they *are* bandits, and they violate your so-called 'contract'.
Ownership doesn't need 'mass-recognition'. Wtf?
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
It's really hard to track these comments now. They're all over the place. I'll do my best to find the ones that haven't already been beaten to death...
What I'm trying to teach you about ownership is the following: what you own depends on what people recognize as yours. If people don't recognize that you fully own your land, then your ownership is artificial.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
4) False. What I own depends on my recognition of it as mine:
- In mass-absence, this is sufficient.
- In mass-ignorance, this is sufficient.
- In mass-indifference, this is sufficient.
- In mass-tolerance, this is sufficient.
- In mass-recognition, this is sufficient.
- In mass-respect, this is sufficient.
etc.
It is *only* controversial when you introduce somone who makes a contrary claim of ownership. In your case, by denying the validity of *all* ownership claims but their own.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
"this is sufficient"
Yes, to you. But that doesn't cut it in the real world.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
Actually it does. As I showed, it is sufficient in every case except the last one. The first (and Human A) prove that property & ownership exist in absence of mass-recognition which defeats your claim outright. The 3rd and 4th show that this claim is valid by default. The 5th and 6th show that an informed society reinforce the existing claim. Even animals recognize ownership. It's pretty much a consequence of identity.
In contrast, you didn't produce any actual argument at all.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You ignored my question before. If there is only one thief (Human B) and he trades to Human C, is the trade fair? And say, 10 more trades happen after that (to D, E, F, etc)... are those trades fair, tainted, partially fair? If you think they're fair, I'd like to hear why.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 I didn't ignore it, go check.
B took it from A, converting it via trade with D (now C). C-L did nothing wrong and ended as they started. M gave goods to L for the rock. If the goal is for N-S to mitigate the injustice & ownership claims between A, B & M:
Rock value = max(min(value to A, value to M), sale value B to C).
If (value to A > value to M), B pays M max(Rock value, sale value L to M). Give rock back to A.
Else, B pays A Rock value. M keeps rock.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Again, you totally ignore the question. Was the initial trade from B to C a fair transaction in your opinion? And let's say, after A was robbed, he died. But he has children A1 and A2. Does B owe anything to these offspring?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
I didn't ignore it, wtf? I told you twice, but I'll explain again. B stole the rock. He traded with C, so now B owns something from C which was of equal or greater value to him than the rock, which he should not own. C did nothing wrong at all. The result is identical to C-L trading among themselves, and B trading directly with M.
'Was the trade fair' is like asking 'Is a zebra white!?'
If B killed A, his debt to A1 & A2 (etc..) would take a lifetime to repay, so yes.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
2) It still assumes that the means was illicit in a way which justifies force.
3) Society cannot define what is too much for me because they cannot know my needs. They cannot know my desires either, and that is equally important unless you intend to reduce people to a minimalistic slave state. They cannot properly regulate the growth of my industry, they can't plan my contingencies, and they can't adapt to changing pressures in a way which benefits me. Capitalism is much better.
NobodyImportant2008 8 months ago
2) I'm not going to keep spending time on this word. You want to attach a meaning that I don't accept. Some people 'end up with' things by inheriting them. They weren't illicit in their action; at least, not intentionally.
3) No, we can't perfectly calculate your needs. But we do the best we can. We have a good idea of how much is too much. As I've admitted repeatedly, this measurement stick requires subjective application. When socieity considers it's taking too much, it should adjust.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214
2) This isn't a problem with words, it is a problem with concepts. You have made the assumption that gaining possession was wrong, and that it is therefore okay to take it