Switzerland referendum on citizens dividend

[Kshartle]

Right now this thread is on course for a locking. Let's settle down a bit.

Why is that? Moda and I have talked on the side. As far as I know we're cool. We can have a discussion about this stuff although if he or Doodle prefer we can stop right now.

Guys? I'm cool either way.

[moda0306]

You have NO basis for your moral position, yet you argue with us from a pedestal, acting like you have the moral high-ground, which is an utter joke.  When doodle and I ask you what happens if we disagree, you just say "I don't care as long as you don't steal "my property.""  That surely is some circular logic.  Care to expand on this a bit.  Entire wars have been fought by people over what both sides very surely thought was "their property."

Yes I do have a basis. It's the concept of self-ownership. It's very basic and everyone expresses it's validity without even thinking twice about it.

What is the circular logic? You can believe whatever nonsense you want....just please don't steal and attack me or others and we'll generally be cool. Keep the violent beast caged and we'll just pretend it doesn't exist alright? I'm not going want to see you punished for your thoughts.

Wouldn't it be better if rather than "fighting" over property people used peaceful negotiation instead? Ohhh wait, I forgot we lived in bizzaro world where you end wars by invading and making war.

Trying to solve property disputes by denying that it exists is like trying to get across the English channel by walking and pretending you won't drown.


I'm not saying you are violent or anyone else here is. I don't know you guys except through this forum. You do advocate it though whether you recognize it or not. If that feels like I am taking the moral high road then so be it. There are no potholes on the high road so I hear.

Animals also express self-ownership.  They defend what they think is theirs.

To establish theft has occured, you first have to establish property is validly owned.

You haven't been able to clearly spell out a charter on how one owns property that isn't full of holes or circular logic.

if its so full of holes and bad logic what is your alternative?

if property doesn't exist and i have no right to claim anything, or anything beyond my body, then there is nothing to build a society on top of, how does this property less society work? if i produce something then what happens? i loose it? it belongs to some guy who a bunch of people elected to take it from me, because he claimed they would get a share? because the were given a monopoly on violence? i don't see any way you can build a fair society, or any society without property, regardless of the philosophical dead end of "moral ownership", that the property is theft philosophy drops you into
property may confound you because of your beliefs, but it still is the only workable foundation we have...

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.

reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.

Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.

But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.

reason: What else?

Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.

reason: How much has violence declined?

Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

[moda0306]

Kshartle and I are fine.

I really think the natural state between us is one of near-constant jabbing at each other that's on the border of seriousness but we love the debte too damn much to stop.

However, it's not helpful for others.  I'll TRY to cool it .

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.

reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.

Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.

But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.

reason: What else?

Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.

reason: How much has violence declined?

Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Yes.  Close to it, anyway.  However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence.


I've got one... If I have property stolen from me, do I still have a claim to that property?

[Kshartle]

Hard to say that an animal can't judge the "correctness" of his actions if you can't first logically tell me what is "correct." It doesn't matter what I think is correct. I might have a terrible idea of what's correct. I'm still responsible for my actions though. The fact that I can even contemplate it means I have free will. The animal does not. The animal cannot be responsible even for itself since it doesn't have free will. If it can't be responsible for itself....how can it be responsible for property?

My old golden retreiver KNEW when she was doing something "incorrect."  Well some things anyway . Well...she knew when you were going to be unhappy with her most likely.....I get that you're joking but I hope you can see this is not the same as the dog actually judging her actions and exercising free will.

So if a being can't judge the morality of their actions, they have no true rights.  Babies can't.  Can we kill them? Do I really need to explain that babies are just little humans and are different from animals? Yes the babies aren't responsible for themselves yet. This would be a grey area but I think it's safe to say that it's wrong to kill a baby. They are humans. Unless you want to suggest that it might be ok? We should probably not go here.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle and I are fine.

I really think the natural state between us is one of near-constant jabbing at each other that's on the border of seriousness but we love the debte too damn much to stop.

However, it's not helpful for others.  I'll TRY to cool it .

I didn't feel any heat. I appreciate the sharpening of my arguments. Sometimes the blade can only be forged in the fire.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.

reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.

Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.

But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.

reason: What else?

Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.

reason: How much has violence declined?

Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity. Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style. Maybe this isn't rational....but it's reality. Your utopia falls apart because it is based on a flawed overestimation of human pacifism and rationality. At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.

[Kshartle]

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Yes.  Close to it, anyway.  However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence. You were right at yes and then you screwed it up! You can be dumb.....but you can't be complicit in the theft of your stuff and you're never responsible for the theif's actions.

I've got one... If I have property stolen from me, do I still have a claim to that property?
[/quote] Yes absolutely. It belongs to you, not them.

[Kshartle]

At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.

Then why are trying to convince me of that with an argument rather than violence? What kind of wierd relationships do you have where people settle things with violence rather than rationale decisions?

[doodle]

At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.

Then why are trying to convince me of that with an argument rather than violence? What kind of wierd relationships do you have where people settle things with violence rather than rationale decisions?

Right now, my life is not affected by you. But if you started encroaching on my cropland with your grazing cattle and wouldnt leave...then I would probably kill you. And believe it or not, this is why so many people died violent deaths in pre-government societies. Because disputes arose, power struggle ensues, people die.

[Kshartle]

Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style.

The funny thing is..... the violent threat of the third party is a mafia style solution. Two people negotiating, possibly with another party mediating is how almost every human dispute is solved.

Do you hit your wife until she agees to see the movie you want to go to or threaten to have someone else hit her? - I know you don't do this...I'm just trying to provide an example of why your statement above is wrong.

[doodle]

Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style.

The funny thing is..... the violent threat of the third party is a mafia style solution. Two people negotiating, possibly with another party mediating is how almost every human dispute is solved.

Yes, and when one of the parties refuses to go along with the decision of the mediator...then what?

[doodle]

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity

  you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended.. 

So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?

Should a father be able to hand down property to his son? I can think of philosophical arguments for or against this. Which one is right? Well, I'll guess the powerful will decide and force the others who disagree to go along.

we have gone over the basics of how property rights work countless times already, they really aren't that hard to grasp unless you fall into the bottomless pit of confusion the idea that "property is theft" drops you in. for a basic primer try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

and the answer is yes if you want to take somebodies property they have a right to defend it, but seeing or understanding that requires understanding both property and the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty... so to those in the pit of confusion that may not make sense.

[Kshartle]

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.

Actually it’s brilliant. What it demonstrates quite clearly is that someone doesn’t need to be physically hurt for violence to exist. Just because the victim submits rather resist does not change the fact that violence took place. There are about a bazillion examples I could have used but this one seems simple enough.

Since the government enforces tax collection against the will of people through the threat of violence it is committing violence. The same goes for all laws. They are all enforced through the threat of violence. What this complete idiot professor is trying to convince people is that government has reduced violence. If he had half a brain he could recognize in an instant that governments have perfected violence to such a high degree that very few people even resist.

Modern governments represent the pinnacle of violent expression of some humans against others.

I doubt that many murders take place in North Korea. Does he think it’s not violent there? It must seem like Utopia to this twit.

Well I have to give him a pass since he is coming from Harvard. That hole has given us such moral champions as George W. and B. Obama. Seriously, their ethics department must have an endowment from Hitler or Stalin’s estates. How on Earth can they pump out such up is down, black is white garbage?

[Kshartle]

You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.

Do you truly believe this? Sincere question. Do you sincerely believe this is true?

[Kshartle]

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity

  you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended..

He doesn't fail to understand the difference. How can he? Every semi-intelligent person can understnad the difference. When people pretend to not understand basic and simple distinctions like this it is for argumentative purposes. It is wasteful of other people's time and brain power constantly knocking down fallacious arguments that are disingenuous.

It's either that or an emotional defense mechanism. If taxation is theft; the person needs to either admit theft/violence is morally acceptable when it serves their desires or admit that the government is immoral. These are hard choices for some people to make because it challenges everything they've been taught by people they respect and admire or love. They have to admit they've been lied to and believe lies. Or they have to admit they don't have a moral compass.

The way out of this is to imagine there is no such thing as property or morality. Then nobody can really be immoral and the concept of theft and government can brushed aside as just "the way things are". The contradictions this brings up get really bizzare and uncomfortable though.

What do you think Simon? Do you think I have a point with any of that? If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.

no that pretty well sums it up... i like to give the benefit of the doubt, but regardless of whether its pretending for argument, contrarianism for sport, a defense mechanism, or honest lack of understanding grown out of a flawed fundamental belief (property is theft) they are still in "confusion" arguing that since you cant tell them "which came first property or theft" there is no validity to any claim of property, and therefore no theft if government takes it.. and yes the contradictions do get really bizarre..

[Pointedstick]

What do you think Simon? Do you think I have a point with any of that? If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.

Personally I think you need to learn how to discuss these matters without directly challenging people's hypocrisies, such as the ones you gave examples of. You may be right, but such a blunt approach never works with the person you're talking to and only rarely convinces observers.

I actually think you are right about most of this stuff, but I cringe when you discuss it because of how your aggressive style sabotages any chance of your words being really listened to. I believe that us libertarian-ish folk owe it to ourselves to be good ambassadors if we want other people to follow our intellectual leadership into the bright future that you and I both believe is possible if we reject the morality of initiating violence for utilitarian purposes. Otherwise we just come off as that asshole Ayn Rand fanatic that everyone knew in high school or college who was so insufferable, and we stop being listened to.

For such a fan of persuasion, you would do well to learn other styles besides logical argumentation. It actually turns out to be one of the weaker sorts, which is one of the major reasons why I think libertarian ideas have failed to gain much traction.

less government... please... have a heart do it for the children

[Pointedstick]

I do think we need to do a better job of addressing Moda and Doodle's arguments like the theft from Native Americans. This one actually turns out to be really easy to explain from a libertarian perspective: the U.S. government purposely initiated genocidal policies against them, including policies that encouraged the destruction of their food sources (leading to the near eradication of the American buffalo, for example), outright invasion by government forces, distribution of biological weapons, and deemed-legal theft (for example the Louisiana Purchase).

If the U.S. government wanted to right the wrong it was responsible for committing, it should give over its own vast landholdings in the American west to the surviving Native Americans. That way it wouldn't have to steal from any current private landowners, since it owns millions of acres on its own and there are actually very few Native Americans left as a result of its incredibly effective campaign of genocide.

But of course, what do you think is the likelihood of the U.S. government doing something like that?

[moda0306]

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Yes.  Close to it, anyway.  However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence. You were right at yes and then you screwed it up! You can be dumb.....but you can't be complicit in the theft of your stuff and you're never responsible for the theif's actions.

I've got one... If I have property stolen from me, do I still have a claim to that property?

Yes absolutely. It belongs to you, not them.
[/quote]

So can I steal from my neighbor who collects SS while I pay in?

Can an Indian aggressively push people off property they have a natural inherant right to, as their ancestors made initial use of it?


I guess, on a different note, if someone shot a police officer to death who entered their property after the perp murdered someone and drove away, would you hope that they have any corrective action taken against them by government?

[moda0306]

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity

  you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended..

Well since property hasn't been defined or established yet, apparently, should we stick to "individual sovereignty?"

But if you have to violate the individual sovereignty of one person (tax, draft, etc) to protect another's, is that even legitimate in the first place, if our initial premise is individual sovereignty.  I don't think so... but more importantly, I've asked this a lot and gotten few good answers from quasi-libertarians other than "less government is better than more."

The way I think of it is this.  We have two competing premises:

1) Ideally, we're sovereign individuals that should be able to do what we want.

2) We're all stuck on this rock together, and need to consume its resources to survive, but have no fundamental connection to any single resource.

Though we have been given the ability to mold the world around us, there is no evidence, to me, that we have the "right" to based on individual sovereignty.

I find it odd that Kshartle establishes "rights" only for those with what HE deems to be a moral compass.  That is certainly convenient, as he's one of those people.

So, to lead us away from the baby-killing type of hypotheticals (certain to end in some snark, if-not anger), let's stick to this one...

If I decide to take puppies out into my front lawn (I live in a cul de sac where a lot of kids play), and stab them each in the abdomen, or torture them, or whatever else I deem entertaining, I have not done anything wrong...but I can have an entire rain-forest plowed over to start a catte farm (with all the sick factory farm activity that goes on), and not only have I not done anything wrong, but my gorgeous modification of the forest from its original state to a torturous slaughter house has actually SOLIDIFIED my "right" to lay claim to all that property, and shoot trespassers, including nomadic tribes who used to live/hunt on that property, but within the ecological bounds of the forest itself???

Am I missing something here?  How is this logic consistent, moral, or deductive?

[moda0306]

So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?

Should a father be able to hand down property to his son? I can think of philosophical arguments for or against this. Which one is right? Well, I'll guess the powerful will decide and force the others who disagree to go along.

we have gone over the basics of how property rights work countless times already, they really aren't that hard to grasp unless you fall into the bottomless pit of confusion the idea that "property is theft" drops you in.  for a basic primer try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

and the answer is yes if you want to take somebodies property they have a right to defend it, but seeing or understanding that requires understanding both property and the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty... so to those in the pit of confusion that may not make sense.

That video is a bit convenient in its description:

"You own your life... to deny this is to imply another person has a higher claim on your life than you do."

Well Kshartle may have given us his opinion.... but according to these folks, do animals own their lives?

Also, to deny it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean another person has a higher claim.  I don't think I own the sun, but I don't think anyone has a higher claim than I do.... it's just there and is hugely responsible for me even being alive.


Then they go on to say:

"A product of your LIFE and your LIBERTY is your PROPERTY."

I actually can't disagree too much with this, but for the fact that it involves, often, a little thing like "TAKING CLAIM OF OTHERWISE UNTOUCHED NATURAL RESOURCES."

I could even agree more if property was, truly, as they say a "PRODUCT OF YOUR TIME, ENERGY, AND TALENTS."

Then they point out, but gloss over, the most important piece:

"PROPERTY IS THAT PART OF NATURE WHICH YOU TURN TO VALUABLE USE."

So you have to make a claim on NATURE to bring value... well it's one thing if that part of nature is an apple... it's quite another if it's 200 acres of property that I've tilled, fertilized, planted and drain-tiled for my own specific use.

They just gloss over the whole issue of what claims we can rightfully make and defend of the nature arund us.

So the rest of the video, which ignores that hiccup, is pretty invalid.

I'm not saying I have a BETTER method, yet... I'm just saying that the premise of pure liberty is fallacious.  There is going to be a balance between force and freedom, and our job must be to optimize it, not rid ourselves of it, because the latter is impossible anyway, and as doodle and I have explained, is very convenient for some, but inconvenient for others.

[moda0306]

If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?

Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.

Actually it’s brilliant. What it demonstrates quite clearly is that someone doesn’t need to be physically hurt for violence to exist. Just because the victim submits rather resist does not change the fact that violence took place. There are about a bazillion examples I could have used but this one seems simple enough.

Since the government enforces tax collection against the will of people through the threat of violence it is committing violence. The same goes for all laws. They are all enforced through the threat of violence. What this complete idiot professor is trying to convince people is that government has reduced violence. If he had half a brain he could recognize in an instant that governments have perfected violence to such a high degree that very few people even resist.

Modern governments represent the pinnacle of violent expression of some humans against others.

I doubt that many murders take place in North Korea. Does he think it’s not violent there? It must seem like Utopia to this twit.

Well I have to give him a pass since he is coming from Harvard. That hole has given us such moral champions as George W. and B. Obama. Seriously, their ethics department must have an endowment from Hitler or Stalin’s estates. How on Earth can they pump out such up is down, black is white garbage?

Well I suppose the term "violence" is a bit too general then, because I'd assume that anyone of us would rather have found out our spouse been held up for her purse than shot in the process.  Probably by a HUGE degree.

So why don't we say "murder" rather than violence, because even if I bump a guy on the sidewalk, that's violence... just a much lower degree.  The rate of by-far the most destructive type of violence... murder... has decreased significantly.

And who's to say that our agents of government aren't the proper holders of property?  I mean it was agents of government before them that facilitated most of the settling of the west... Maybe the Secretary of the Interior is the "rightful owner" of our Nat'l Parks.  Maybe the IRS is the "rightful owner" of a portion of our income (especially considering we KNEW they would take it before we signed the contract to earn it, and did it anyway).  Who is to say they aren't?  Do they "own" the marketplace within which we operate?  If not, why do we own any property we think we've "acquired" under the state's control?  If it truly is just lent to us from them, what's our true claim to that property?

[Pointedstick]

And who's to say that our agents of government aren't the proper holders of property?  I mean it was agents of government before them that facilitated most of the settling of the west...

"facilitated most of the settling of the west" is a pretty charitable way of referring to genocide. If you believe that the Native Americans rightfully owned the land that was taken away from them, why should the government agents that attempted to exterminate them be the proper holders of their former lands?

[Kshartle]

What do you think I82start? Do you think I have a point with any of that? If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.

Personally I think you need to learn how to discuss these matters without directly challenging people's hypocrisies, such as the ones you gave examples of. You may be right, but such a blunt approach never works with the person you're talking to and only rarely convinces observers.

Believe me I temper it. Advocating the use of violence and theft is so repugnant to me I have to re-type and re-type what I'd really like to say.

I've watched these discussions for years now, everyone trying to figure out should inflation be 2%, 3%, 4%, should humans be designated "illegal" should they be forced to do this or that, should people be allowed to make money in banking etc. etc.  For all the smart and well-tempered guys on here they've never been able to squelch this silliness.

These are all fundamental questions of what violence should be advocated. Some people get that and some people don't. The ones that get it should just admit it. They support violence and are fans of. Defending violence by saying it curbs violence is completely false. I'd like to just crush that argument so we don't have to hear it anymore. Then we can get down to brass tacks. People who didn't understand that they were advocating violence can learn something and change their opinions.

It's one thing to ponder what the government might do and what effect that might have (I'm all for these productive conversations), but pretending you can affect it or your brand of dictatorship and violence will solve problems and not just create others is silly. There are so many smart guys and gals here....I'd like to see everyone either get that concept or if they disagree point out it's a moral or emotional issue preventing them from agreeing, it's certainly not based on facts or logic.

If someone disagrees with me and they are being hypocritical that means they are contradicting themselves. When your argument contradicts itself it's clear that you're wrong. Pointing out the hypocrisy or contradiction is the quickest way to point that out. If someone persists after it's pointed out with certainty they're wrong....well then they are just clinging on for ego. People point out contradictory arguments here all the time. I might be fairly good at it, but I'm definitely not the only one.