Yes, we could have both sent, but one will need to be the default or we make all users recompile the kernel. That would really sound bad from a PR perspective.
Eh? I fail to see why you couldn't have two different precompiled kernels.
C//
Re:The Singularity is NOT Doomsday
on
True Names
·
· Score: 2
The Singularity" has many, many positive connotations as well as many negative connotations, the underlying factor is that what will happen is an unknown, what form it will take (or what forms, as it is quite possible, even probable, that we will diverge in many directions as the means and technologies to do so become available) is an unknown, and when exactly it will happen is an unknown. Assuming such stifling things as patents,...
Hey, but that gives me an idea. What happens when computers, brains, and software are all the same thing. "You're running illegal software on your brain! We're to confiscate your brain as evidence! Drag your internal icon to the Start menu and click shutdown immediately!
That is interesting to know, but doesn't affect the point.
Was it supposed to affect the point? You seemed to indicate an interest in languages, and I thought you might therefore find this tidbit interesting. The learnability of languages is something which is the subject of scholarship in the fields of cognitive science and linguistics. I don't know how linguists view the learnability of English. What I was saying wasn't related to English, although I suppose you might find it interesting to find out what the linguists have to say about that topic too.
Myself, I don't know. I suppose you'll have to look it up.
You might be interested to learn that Turkish (if I recall correctly, and I think I do) is considered in and amongst the easiest languages to learn. Apparently it is reasonably exception free, unlike, say English, with mouse and mice (as opposed to the regular mouse and mouses) and go and went (as opposed to go and goed). Whether or not Turkish is expressive or not, I won't speculate on.
I believe it's ease of learnability was determined by the average age children in the society have mastery of the grammatical system.
You seem to be confused abut what you actually believe.
But in fact I'm not at all confused about what I believe.
... do you really believe that Democracy is in the best interests of all people when it's not constrained by a Constitution that acknowledges inalienable human rights and offers protection for the minority?
Why would you ask me this question when I have specifically disavowed democracy as an abolute deteriminer of rightness? It would seem to me that you're operating on cruise control; your intellectual position has yet to catch up with the course of events of this discussion.
Answer me this...
The answer to this question is already self-evident from answers I've given previously. You're engaging in dirty debating tactics again, Gendou. You're attempting to make me defend egregious positions which aren't my own. Well, I have news for you. Neither are they my opinions, nor will I defend them.
My position has never been against Constitutional Democracy. In fact I am for Constitutional Democracy. What I'm against is LP extremism, taking to absurd degrees, all justified by a formulae treated as if it were handed to the LP by God himself. Things don't work like that, Gendou.
...and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I've already made it quite clear that I do not believe in the absoluteness of the will of the people to about the same degree that I don't believe in the absoluteness of silly formulae. That's a position that you've fabricated in your own mind, as an attempt to generate smug self-satisfaction.
don't know why you hate me so much or why I hate you so much....
I don't know why you believe that I hate you, because I don't. However, I do know why you hate me. People don't respond well when they use disingenous forms of argument and then are caught out on it. It's a very uncomfortable feeling to have someone see through and disregard what was, until present, a winning argumentative strategy. I am aware of this strategy, because, like you, I have successfully used it to browbeat people in debate before. Being familiar with it, however, means that it's quite easy for me to breeze right past it.
What you've been doing is asking a question in which you artificially constrain the number of answers to two and then make each of those answers serve your argument. As I've said several times now, this is called "bifurcation," and it's simply not going to work with me. You can't browbeat me with it, because I'm both familiar with the strategy and likewise simply don't accept your dichotomy.
Real societies are complex. A two sentence rule, no matter how generally appealing, will never generate a well-run society. To me, the absoluteness of your rule is no more appealing than "from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs." It's a glib and clever-sounding slogan, not a means to generate a well-run government. The Libertarian Credo, followed absolutely, risks being as disastrous as Marx's, I say.
What I find interesting is that you don't seem willing to see this, in spite of the fact that the very foundations of our Republic are based on such a compromise philosophy. Critical infrastructure like roads, secured for the common good and ensured by law as equal access, were viewed as essential to the foundation of our new Republic.
I again have to remind you, by the way, that it's simply not true that the majority of the German people supported the Final Solution. The details of the Final Solution were kept secret from the German people at large, and once it was all leaked out in its whole form, the German people were appalled and ashamed by and large. Witness the Germany of today, where freedom of speech does not exist for hate speech. My grandfather and I would talk about this at great length before he died. He was a U.S. officer who after the war had the duty of escorting large numbers of German people through the concentration camps.
Generally when one behaves in the manner you're behaving in, it's a sure sign that one has run out of intellectual material and the battle of wits has been lost.
I actually did answer your question; the problem here is that you have no adequate reply to my perspectives and are currently dealing with a harsh internal cognitive dissonance. Lashing out in a childly manner is now all that's left to you.
It's funny. I've been thinking this for some time. Over the last couple of years, it's become quite apparent to me that the reason that Microsoft is so successful at this is that the business model has natural monopoly properties. "This stuff all works together" is a natural monopoly not unlike phone companies.
Of course, you and I differ on the solution. I believe that granting Microsoft dejure state-sponsored status as a monopolist, even with regulation would be a horrible disaster.
There must be numerous players, in my opinion. While there is a naturalness to the monopoly, other concerns override the benefit the people are getting from having a single dominate player. Or so I feel.
Convince everyone whose property borders on this man's property to build a wall on their property that obstructs view of his property.
Then you say:
I never said I supported walling someone in.
Furthermore, when pressed on it, you made it clear that you meant all the way around his property. Walls all the way around his property seems like "walled in" to me. Perhaps you should clarify yourself, as it seems that your position is rather tenuous here.
and you're just perhaps a very virulent troller...
Objective reality is catching up with you, Mr. Gendou. Your message "Typical fascist nonsense" has been moderated to Flamebait, but no messages of mine have been so treated.
Surveys have shown that 41% of adults in the United States are generally Libertarian.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics," to paraphrase Mark Twain. I have no doubt at all that many people in this country have libertarian leanings. But that's neither here nor there. If the survey asked the respondants whether or not they favored privatization of critical public infrastructure, the elimination of minimum wage laws, the elimination of laws against discrimination (for God's sake, man), the elimination of noise ordinances, the elimination of all speeding laws, and so on, the survey would have come out entirely differently.
And, yet again, you've refused to answer my question.
I have refused to answer your question, because it is an attempt to bifurcate an argument: an attempt to pigeon-hole the position by falsely simplifying a complex position into two artificial positions. Since you're having trouble seeing this, allow me to explain. While exceptions to rules disprove the absolute generality of a rule, they say nothing about its goodness of fit. Societies aren't such that they can be determined formulaically. While consensus government isn't perfect, it's the best we have, and we get by, all along marching towards the common good the best we know how.
The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority
This isn't really true, by the way. The dirty details of Hitler's "Final Solution" were kept secret from the German people in general, and while they were certainly true of being guilty of looking the other way, it likely took quite some time for the large mass of the German people to really understand what was going on. By the time they understood fully, their society reacted with mass horror at what happened, and we have the Germany that we have today.
By the way, I find it curious that you feel that you need to have my identity so badly. What possibily do you feel you could achieve with it? Should I take this as an attempt to intimidate?You'd think that as an advocate of liberty you'd respect the rights of your fellow men to privacy.
I always find it a sorry state of affairs indeed when a man even by his own standards comes forth judged lacking. Time to grow up.
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask...
What were you saying about threats again? Please, do continue.
You seem unable to provide a "yes" or "no" answer to this question, because you know that either answer will prove you wrong.
This is incorrect. It's quite possible to believe in a minimalistic government and even libertarian-inspired politics and ethics without endorsing some of the ridiculous clap trap that LP whackos support. You are engaging in classical bifurcation, where you falsely paint the world as being entirely against you or for you. That things are either one way, or the other, black or white. Things don't work like that. Bifurcation is the fallacy of false dichotomy. It's childish. Grow up.
Maybe you should try reading some Libertarian documents.
I have read _Why Government Doesn't Work_ by Harry Brown. I've perused any variety of materials by Jefferson, Paine, and peers. The _Libertarian Primer_. I frequently follow the Cato Institute.
"I'll take false assumptions for $900, Alex."
Who were you saying is the fool? By all means, continue to embarrass yourself.
And when we ARE in charge, when we ARE the majority...
You believe that four neighbors walling up a neighbor they don't like is a good solution in civilized society, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? You believe that speeding down residential neighborhoods at 100 mph is a good solution, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? You believe that private ownership of critical public infrastructure is a good public solution, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? These beliefs are naive in the extreme. People don't want that, and they're not even tending to want that. Furthermore, such policies would be an unmitigated disaster.
...and retract your statement that "the mandate of the people" always supersedes human rights?
Point of order. This is a straw man. For someone who narcissistically babbles on and on about his own argumentative skills, you sure do make a lot of silly mistakes.
In your fascist world, if you don't like what the government is doing, you have zero recourse, because...
This isn't true. We can vote. Furthermore, we have a voice, and can convey our beliefs to our fellow men. Through this system of consensus and education, we can do our best to stumble along towards our greater good. As I see it, that beats the alternatives, which all inevitably involve some asshole bleating about how everything is going to go his way. This rather sounds like you, actually.
If you ever decide to stop ranting like a moron and...
The one with the page-long diatribes is you and not me. The one who is acting like a child because you can't get what you want is you and not me. Contrary to what you say, you have not presented any "logic" (sic). What you've done is espoused a view point loudly. There have been no premises followed by observations of fact followed by deductive steps. Using the word "logic" as if it would allow you to win an argumentative point without actually understanding what logic means isn't going to win you any points.
There's a name for people like you: it's "Nazi," or "bigot," or "hatemonger," or even more simply: "monster."...and call me nasty names... Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy yelling like a child? I've shot down every one of your points, and...
The one with the long slavering diatribe --waffling back and forth between calling people monster, nazi, bigot, and hatemonger and then alternately whining about being called names -- is you and not me. I'm sure everyone reading this thread can quite clearly see who the child is. Like all your fellow LP whackos, you have temper tantrums when you don't get your way. Society isn't like that. Grow up.
I refer to there as being fanaticism and whacky zealotry throughout the LP, and you come up with a rebuttal like this? I suppose it was only a matter of time before you demonstrated a genuine Prozac moment. Please. Do continue. LOL.
Now, since there are very few people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, there will probably wind up being very few street owners who are members of that group, and hence very few streets that allow driving 100mph.
Ah, but this is the snake-eating the tail of typical LP whackiness. If people organizing rules collectively is so evil, why is it that you've just proposed a system where people get together and organize rules? LP whackos constantly refer to government as if it is some sort of incarnate, thinking, evil thing.
I can practically see you frothing at the mouth. Please do continue.
But you do have a right to be free of an unreasonable risk of your own injury, demise, or ruination due to the negligent behavior of other human beings. This is why we have speeding laws, amongst other things.
Virtually no one wants people speeding on residential streets. This is only one example of the ridiculous extremes LP nutzos are willing to go. Nobody wants that, we'll never have that, get over it.
Nice diatribe, but you're greatly confused. There is a great degree of difference between assuring the rights of the minority and arguing that it ought to be legal to speed down residential streets at 100 mph, mix explosives in your apartment at the risk to all of your neighbors, and so on. It's not classical liberalism I have an objection to, it's modern fanatical LP-style ridiculous libertarian zealotry.
No, it is you who is doing this in your attempt to ram an extremist political system down the throats of your fellow citizens. We have a healthy and well-regulated society which the vast majority of us actually approve of on the whole if often not in the detail. Get over yourself, you narcissist.
The thing these libertarians don't want to accept is the idea that it's impossible to fairly determine what a reasonable point of view is without collectively airing and agreeing upon that point of view. For example, any reasonable man believes that speeding at 100 mph through a residential neighborhood is an activity that is both to be avoided and prevented with the use of force by authorities we've apointed for that purpose. How do I know that this is true? That's what the vast majority of us believe, and how we vote.
Libertarianism is itself on its face proof that narcissistic individuals with an absolute, unwaivering, and passionate belief in their own self-correctness will attempt to perturb a system of government, and often not to the ends desired by the people.
Government is the servant of the people, not its master.
I would say A Trans Am travelling at an unsafe speed through a residential neighborhood is a threat of force, considering what it would do to anyone it hit - and considering that under the circumstances, there is a high chance it could hit someone. 'Nuff said.
No, clearly not enough has been said. The teenager has no intention to threaten or endanger, he's just an idiot out having a good time. The "threat", as you put it, is in your mind. You feel threatened.
And that brings up an interesting point. How do we, the People, as a law making body, decide what kind of things it's reasonable to feel threatened by? I'll tell you how: we vote. It's called collective government. Welcome to the 21st century and all that.
Actually, I did recognize it, as well as your tendency to be patronizing, which is probably related to your tendency to engage in absolutes.
Children are not adults, and can't make most decisions for themselves.
Why, thank you for lecturing! The vast sea of humanity around you easily recognizes a child's inability to make life-changing decisions for themselves and has -- all without having to devise a cleverly worded slogan -- put it into law in a form which serviceably fulfills the needs of the people. Will wonders never cease?
Given the choice between losing you as a renter and losing the crazy guy with the bomb fetish, I'd say the situation will probably be dealt with to your satisfaction.
But not soon enough. Nitrocglycerine is volatile! Someone's mixing volatile explosives 8' under your ass, and your answer is "wait for the landlord to intervene"? Surely thou jesteth!
If the landlord creates a rule against having explosives on the property,...
Good that you should bring this up! In fact, the "Landlord", at our collective request, has indeed made such a rule in virtually every city around.
That's fraud, which is a form of force.
I didn't say that he deliberately deceived you, I said that he backed out. Changed his mind.
If the teenager incurs any damage to you or anyone else, he/she will be responsible for the damage.
The majority of the sea of humanity around you doesn't want to risk that damage, and you'd feel exactly the same way if you had a wife or kid anywhere near that street. Now stop being ridiculous, nobody wants anything like what you're proposing. Do away with traffic law. Har har.
Beyond that, complain to the owner of the street,
Glad that you brought that up again! As it so happens, the owner of the street, at our collective request, is ready to doing something about it already.
Convince everyone whose property borders on this man's property to build a wall on their property that obstructs view of his property.
Ahem. The front of the property.
Or ask him nicely to remove his junk, or volunteer to remove it for him.
He says "no," and tells you to fuck off.
Yes, it does work. Good idea, and it is quite right.
No. It's been tested and failed. Government is an instrument of the collective will. Given a choice, people move away from the kind of anarchy that you propose.
Threatening issually involves intent, often clearly demonstrated. Feeling threatened involves perception, which is far less clear. Someone might feel threatened by the guns in your house, for example, on the theory that you might use them inappropriately. This is an appropriate analogy. Our nitroglycerine mixing whacko might well feel that what he's doing is perfectly safe, albeit we as a society agree that it isn't and use the rules of reasonable men.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we could have both sent, but one will need to be the default or we make all users recompile the kernel. That would really sound bad from a PR perspective.
Eh? I fail to see why you couldn't have two different precompiled kernels.
C//
The Singularity" has many, many positive connotations as well as many negative connotations, the underlying factor is that what will happen is an unknown, what form it will take (or what forms, as it is quite possible, even probable, that we will diverge in many directions as the means and technologies to do so become available) is an unknown, and when exactly it will happen is an unknown. Assuming such stifling things as patents, ...
Hey, but that gives me an idea. What happens when computers, brains, and software are all the same thing. "You're running illegal software on your brain! We're to confiscate your brain as evidence! Drag your internal icon to the Start menu and click shutdown immediately!
LOL
C//
That is interesting to know, but doesn't affect the point.
Was it supposed to affect the point? You seemed to indicate an interest in languages, and I thought you might therefore find this tidbit interesting. The learnability of languages is something which is the subject of scholarship in the fields of cognitive science and linguistics. I don't know how linguists view the learnability of English. What I was saying wasn't related to English, although I suppose you might find it interesting to find out what the linguists have to say about that topic too.
Myself, I don't know. I suppose you'll have to look it up.
C//
C//
You might be interested to learn that Turkish (if I recall correctly, and I think I do) is considered in and amongst the easiest languages to learn. Apparently it is reasonably exception free, unlike, say English, with mouse and mice (as opposed to the regular mouse and mouses) and go and went (as opposed to go and goed). Whether or not Turkish is expressive or not, I won't speculate on.
I believe it's ease of learnability was determined by the average age children in the society have mastery of the grammatical system.
C//
You seem to be confused abut what you actually believe.
... do you really believe that Democracy is in the best interests of all people when it's not constrained by a Constitution that acknowledges inalienable human rights and offers protection for the minority?
But in fact I'm not at all confused about what I believe.
Why would you ask me this question when I have specifically disavowed democracy as an abolute deteriminer of rightness? It would seem to me that you're operating on cruise control; your intellectual position has yet to catch up with the course of events of this discussion.
Answer me this...
The answer to this question is already self-evident from answers I've given previously. You're engaging in dirty debating tactics again, Gendou. You're attempting to make me defend egregious positions which aren't my own. Well, I have news for you. Neither are they my opinions, nor will I defend them.
My position has never been against Constitutional Democracy. In fact I am for Constitutional Democracy. What I'm against is LP extremism, taking to absurd degrees, all justified by a formulae treated as if it were handed to the LP by God himself. Things don't work like that, Gendou.
C//
...and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I've already made it quite clear that I do not believe in the absoluteness of the will of the people to about the same degree that I don't believe in the absoluteness of silly formulae. That's a position that you've fabricated in your own mind, as an attempt to generate smug self-satisfaction.
don't know why you hate me so much or why I hate you so much....
I don't know why you believe that I hate you, because I don't. However, I do know why you hate me. People don't respond well when they use disingenous forms of argument and then are caught out on it. It's a very uncomfortable feeling to have someone see through and disregard what was, until present, a winning argumentative strategy. I am aware of this strategy, because, like you, I have successfully used it to browbeat people in debate before. Being familiar with it, however, means that it's quite easy for me to breeze right past it.
What you've been doing is asking a question in which you artificially constrain the number of answers to two and then make each of those answers serve your argument. As I've said several times now, this is called "bifurcation," and it's simply not going to work with me. You can't browbeat me with it, because I'm both familiar with the strategy and likewise simply don't accept your dichotomy.
Real societies are complex. A two sentence rule, no matter how generally appealing, will never generate a well-run society. To me, the absoluteness of your rule is no more appealing than "from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs." It's a glib and clever-sounding slogan, not a means to generate a well-run government. The Libertarian Credo, followed absolutely, risks being as disastrous as Marx's, I say.
What I find interesting is that you don't seem willing to see this, in spite of the fact that the very foundations of our Republic are based on such a compromise philosophy. Critical infrastructure like roads, secured for the common good and ensured by law as equal access, were viewed as essential to the foundation of our new Republic.
I again have to remind you, by the way, that it's simply not true that the majority of the German people supported the Final Solution. The details of the Final Solution were kept secret from the German people at large, and once it was all leaked out in its whole form, the German people were appalled and ashamed by and large. Witness the Germany of today, where freedom of speech does not exist for hate speech. My grandfather and I would talk about this at great length before he died. He was a U.S. officer who after the war had the duty of escorting large numbers of German people through the concentration camps.
C//
Generally when one behaves in the manner you're behaving in, it's a sure sign that one has run out of intellectual material and the battle of wits has been lost.
I actually did answer your question; the problem here is that you have no adequate reply to my perspectives and are currently dealing with a harsh internal cognitive dissonance. Lashing out in a childly manner is now all that's left to you.
C//
It's funny. I've been thinking this for some time. Over the last couple of years, it's become quite apparent to me that the reason that Microsoft is so successful at this is that the business model has natural monopoly properties. "This stuff all works together" is a natural monopoly not unlike phone companies.
Of course, you and I differ on the solution. I believe that granting Microsoft dejure state-sponsored status as a monopolist, even with regulation would be a horrible disaster.
There must be numerous players, in my opinion. While there is a naturalness to the monopoly, other concerns override the benefit the people are getting from having a single dominate player. Or so I feel.
C//
First you say:
Convince everyone whose property borders on this man's property to build a wall on their property that obstructs view of his property.
Then you say:
I never said I supported walling someone in.
Furthermore, when pressed on it, you made it clear that you meant all the way around his property. Walls all the way around his property seems like "walled in" to me. Perhaps you should clarify yourself, as it seems that your position is rather tenuous here.
and you're just perhaps a very virulent troller...
Objective reality is catching up with you, Mr. Gendou. Your message "Typical fascist nonsense" has been moderated to Flamebait, but no messages of mine have been so treated.
Surveys have shown that 41% of adults in the United States are generally Libertarian.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics," to paraphrase Mark Twain. I have no doubt at all that many people in this country have libertarian leanings. But that's neither here nor there. If the survey asked the respondants whether or not they favored privatization of critical public infrastructure, the elimination of minimum wage laws, the elimination of laws against discrimination (for God's sake, man), the elimination of noise ordinances, the elimination of all speeding laws, and so on, the survey would have come out entirely differently.
And, yet again, you've refused to answer my question.
I have refused to answer your question, because it is an attempt to bifurcate an argument: an attempt to pigeon-hole the position by falsely simplifying a complex position into two artificial positions. Since you're having trouble seeing this, allow me to explain. While exceptions to rules disprove the absolute generality of a rule, they say nothing about its goodness of fit. Societies aren't such that they can be determined formulaically. While consensus government isn't perfect, it's the best we have, and we get by, all along marching towards the common good the best we know how.
The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority
This isn't really true, by the way. The dirty details of Hitler's "Final Solution" were kept secret from the German people in general, and while they were certainly true of being guilty of looking the other way, it likely took quite some time for the large mass of the German people to really understand what was going on. By the time they understood fully, their society reacted with mass horror at what happened, and we have the Germany that we have today.
By the way, I find it curious that you feel that you need to have my identity so badly. What possibily do you feel you could achieve with it? Should I take this as an attempt to intimidate?You'd think that as an advocate of liberty you'd respect the rights of your fellow men to privacy.
I always find it a sorry state of affairs indeed when a man even by his own standards comes forth judged lacking. Time to grow up.
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask...
What were you saying about threats again? Please, do continue.
C//
You seem unable to provide a "yes" or "no" answer to this question, because you know that either answer will prove you wrong.
...and retract your statement that "the mandate of the people" always supersedes human rights?
This is incorrect. It's quite possible to believe in a minimalistic government and even libertarian-inspired politics and ethics without endorsing some of the ridiculous clap trap that LP whackos support. You are engaging in classical bifurcation, where you falsely paint the world as being entirely against you or for you. That things are either one way, or the other, black or white. Things don't work like that. Bifurcation is the fallacy of false dichotomy. It's childish. Grow up.
Maybe you should try reading some Libertarian documents.
I have read _Why Government Doesn't Work_ by Harry Brown. I've perused any variety of materials by Jefferson, Paine, and peers. The _Libertarian Primer_. I frequently follow the Cato Institute.
"I'll take false assumptions for $900, Alex."
Who were you saying is the fool? By all means, continue to embarrass yourself.
And when we ARE in charge, when we ARE the majority...
You believe that four neighbors walling up a neighbor they don't like is a good solution in civilized society, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? You believe that speeding down residential neighborhoods at 100 mph is a good solution, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? You believe that private ownership of critical public infrastructure is a good public solution, and you think you'll be in the majority some day? These beliefs are naive in the extreme. People don't want that, and they're not even tending to want that. Furthermore, such policies would be an unmitigated disaster.
Point of order. This is a straw man. For someone who narcissistically babbles on and on about his own argumentative skills, you sure do make a lot of silly mistakes.
By all means. Please continue.
C//
In your fascist world, if you don't like what the government is doing, you have zero recourse, because...
This isn't true. We can vote. Furthermore, we have a voice, and can convey our beliefs to our fellow men. Through this system of consensus and education, we can do our best to stumble along towards our greater good. As I see it, that beats the alternatives, which all inevitably involve some asshole bleating about how everything is going to go his way. This rather sounds like you, actually.
Our modern society isn't like that. Grow up.
C//
If you ever decide to stop ranting like a moron and...
The one with the page-long diatribes is you and not me. The one who is acting like a child because you can't get what you want is you and not me. Contrary to what you say, you have not presented any "logic" (sic). What you've done is espoused a view point loudly. There have been no premises followed by observations of fact followed by deductive steps. Using the word "logic" as if it would allow you to win an argumentative point without actually understanding what logic means isn't going to win you any points.
By all means, continue with your ranting.
C//
There's a name for people like you: it's "Nazi," or "bigot," or "hatemonger," or even more simply: "monster." ...and call me nasty names ... Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy yelling like a child? I've shot down every one of your points, and...
The one with the long slavering diatribe --waffling back and forth between calling people monster, nazi, bigot, and hatemonger and then alternately whining about being called names -- is you and not me. I'm sure everyone reading this thread can quite clearly see who the child is. Like all your fellow LP whackos, you have temper tantrums when you don't get your way. Society isn't like that. Grow up.
C//
I refer to there as being fanaticism and whacky zealotry throughout the LP, and you come up with a rebuttal like this? I suppose it was only a matter of time before you demonstrated a genuine Prozac moment. Please. Do continue. LOL.
C//
Now, since there are very few people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, there will probably wind up being very few street owners who are members of that group, and hence very few streets that allow driving 100mph.
Ah, but this is the snake-eating the tail of typical LP whackiness. If people organizing rules collectively is so evil, why is it that you've just proposed a system where people get together and organize rules? LP whackos constantly refer to government as if it is some sort of incarnate, thinking, evil thing.
I can practically see you frothing at the mouth. Please do continue.
C//
There's a name for people like you: it's "Nazi," or "bigot," or "hatemonger," or even more simply: "monster."
Bwhahahahah. I would make the argument that you're a fanatical zealot, except you're doing it nicely for me. Please. Do continue.
You claim that "the will of the majority" should be unquestionable.
No, actually. I didn't. But by all means, please continue inventing straw men and publically vetting your idiocy for all to see. It's most amusing!
C//
You don't have the "right to feel safe".
But you do have a right to be free of an unreasonable risk of your own injury, demise, or ruination due to the negligent behavior of other human beings. This is why we have speeding laws, amongst other things.
Virtually no one wants people speeding on residential streets. This is only one example of the ridiculous extremes LP nutzos are willing to go. Nobody wants that, we'll never have that, get over it.
C//
Nice diatribe, but you're greatly confused. There is a great degree of difference between assuring the rights of the minority and arguing that it ought to be legal to speed down residential streets at 100 mph, mix explosives in your apartment at the risk to all of your neighbors, and so on. It's not classical liberalism I have an objection to, it's modern fanatical LP-style ridiculous libertarian zealotry.
C//
What you spout is the same neo-facist.
No, it is you who is doing this in your attempt to ram an extremist political system down the throats of your fellow citizens. We have a healthy and well-regulated society which the vast majority of us actually approve of on the whole if often not in the detail. Get over yourself, you narcissist.
C//
Why? Because you say so?
The thing these libertarians don't want to accept is the idea that it's impossible to fairly determine what a reasonable point of view is without collectively airing and agreeing upon that point of view. For example, any reasonable man believes that speeding at 100 mph through a residential neighborhood is an activity that is both to be avoided and prevented with the use of force by authorities we've apointed for that purpose. How do I know that this is true? That's what the vast majority of us believe, and how we vote.
Libertarianism is itself on its face proof that narcissistic individuals with an absolute, unwaivering, and passionate belief in their own self-correctness will attempt to perturb a system of government, and often not to the ends desired by the people.
Government is the servant of the people, not its master.
C//
I would say A Trans Am travelling at an unsafe speed through a residential neighborhood is a threat of force, considering what it would do to anyone it hit - and considering that under the circumstances, there is a high chance it could hit someone. 'Nuff said.
No, clearly not enough has been said. The teenager has no intention to threaten or endanger, he's just an idiot out having a good time. The "threat", as you put it, is in your mind. You feel threatened.
And that brings up an interesting point. How do we, the People, as a law making body, decide what kind of things it's reasonable to feel threatened by? I'll tell you how: we vote. It's called collective government. Welcome to the 21st century and all that.
C//
You must not have recognized it, ...
Actually, I did recognize it, as well as your tendency to be patronizing, which is probably related to your tendency to engage in absolutes.
Children are not adults, and can't make most decisions for themselves.
Why, thank you for lecturing! The vast sea of humanity around you easily recognizes a child's inability to make life-changing decisions for themselves and has -- all without having to devise a cleverly worded slogan -- put it into law in a form which serviceably fulfills the needs of the people. Will wonders never cease?
Given the choice between losing you as a renter and losing the crazy guy with the bomb fetish, I'd say the situation will probably be dealt with to your satisfaction.
But not soon enough. Nitrocglycerine is volatile! Someone's mixing volatile explosives 8' under your ass, and your answer is "wait for the landlord to intervene"? Surely thou jesteth!
If the landlord creates a rule against having explosives on the property,...
Good that you should bring this up! In fact, the "Landlord", at our collective request, has indeed made such a rule in virtually every city around.
That's fraud, which is a form of force.
I didn't say that he deliberately deceived you, I said that he backed out. Changed his mind.
If the teenager incurs any damage to you or anyone else, he/she will be responsible for the damage.
The majority of the sea of humanity around you doesn't want to risk that damage, and you'd feel exactly the same way if you had a wife or kid anywhere near that street. Now stop being ridiculous, nobody wants anything like what you're proposing. Do away with traffic law. Har har.
Beyond that, complain to the owner of the street,
Glad that you brought that up again! As it so happens, the owner of the street, at our collective request, is ready to doing something about it already.
Convince everyone whose property borders on this man's property to build a wall on their property that obstructs view of his property.
Ahem. The front of the property.
Or ask him nicely to remove his junk, or volunteer to remove it for him.
He says "no," and tells you to fuck off.
Yes, it does work. Good idea, and it is quite right.
No. It's been tested and failed. Government is an instrument of the collective will. Given a choice, people move away from the kind of anarchy that you propose.
C//
That sounds very "threat of force" to me
Threatening issually involves intent, often clearly demonstrated. Feeling threatened involves perception, which is far less clear. Someone might feel threatened by the guns in your house, for example, on the theory that you might use them inappropriately. This is an appropriate analogy. Our nitroglycerine mixing whacko might well feel that what he's doing is perfectly safe, albeit we as a society agree that it isn't and use the rules of reasonable men.
C//
Some pervert persuades your 9 year old daughter into having sex with him.
The wierdo with the apartment directly beneath you likes to brew his own personal batches of nitro glycerine. Understandably, you're nervous.
An unscrupulous business person changes his mind and backs out of a contract.
A 17 year old teenager with a Trans Am drives through your residential neighborhood at over 100 miles an hour.
A slovenly neighbor leaves all manner of junk in his yard, bringing down local property values.
And so on.
No, this doesn't work. Good idea, but it's not quite right.
C//
Interesting, I've never had carpal tunnel problems, maybe it's...
:)
You misspelled "don't have the genetic predisposition".
C//