Political Crossfire Forums

[Korimyr the Rat]

BlackOps wrote: WRONG! Other organizations capable of hiring armed men to secure their interests, are traders on the open market...

Yeah, the Mafia's a trader on the open market, trading value-for-value, and all of that other anarchist nonsense. And I'm sure, amidst all of their legitimate business enterprises, that somewhere in their little black hearts, they give a damn about your rights.

Good luck with that.

BlackOps wrote: ... but I and millions like me, do not wish to associate with criminals and murderers, in the "process" of their abusive, coercive and murderous decision making.

Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.

Or is it just paying for society's protection that you object to?

[NobleOne]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: And I'm sure, amidst all of their legitimate business enterprises, that somewhere in their little black hearts, they give a damn about your rights.
And you think governments give a damn? :lol:

Quote: BlackOps wrote: ... but I and millions like me, do not wish to associate with criminals and murderers, in the "process" of their abusive, coercive and murderous decision making.
Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.
There are no "countries" to get out of.

[TheKrava]

Korimyr the Rat wrote:
BlackOps wrote: ... but I and millions like me, do not wish to associate with criminals and murderers, in the "process" of their abusive, coercive and murderous decision making.

Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.

Or is it just paying for society's protection that you object to?

:clap:

That's exactly what I say!!!!!!!!!

[BlackOps]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: BlackOps wrote: WRONG! Other organizations capable of hiring armed men to secure their interests, are traders on the open market...

Yeah, the Mafia's a trader on the open market, trading value-for-value, and all of that other anarchist nonsense. And I'm sure, amidst all of their legitimate business enterprises, that somewhere in their little black hearts, they give a damn about your rights.

Good luck with that.

BlackOps wrote: ... but I and millions like me, do not wish to associate with criminals and murderers, in the "process" of their abusive, coercive and murderous decision making.

Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.

Or is it just paying for society's protection that you object to?

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Yeah, the Mafia's a trader on the open market, trading value-for-value, and all of that other anarchist nonsense. And I'm sure, amidst all of their legitimate business enterprises, that somewhere in their little black hearts, they give a damn about your rights.



He-He-He,

Seems the resident Mickey Mouse intellectual is back! (No disrespect meant, to the original one.) This is the entity, who despite a mountain of bloody evidence to the contrary, insists on blindly defending, one criminal organization, the government, then denigrates the free market as “…all of that other anarchist nonsense,” upon which he somersaults straight into, exemplary non essentials and ends up attempting to demonstrate, how a free society is not feasible, because there’s a few private criminals out there, operating under the trademark of ‘mafia.’ If this is your main argument, against a free society, then you have failed miserably.

First: Add up the number of men, women and children murdered by the government, then compare it to the mafia. You would actually have more credibility, if you insisted, the mafia run the show instead. (Based on the historical evidence.)

Second: In a laissez faire society, the mafia is largely out of business. Remember, everything is permitted, there’s no such thing as “illegal” drugs or illegal gambling, for instance. The economic incentives are largely removed.

Third: In a free society, everything is privately owned. This includes streets, parks, etc… The owners of these assets seek a good return. They protect their investments. This guarantees less street crime and a safer environment for all.

Fourth: In a free society, anyone may be armed, there is no prohibition against carrying weapons. No longer would “legally” disarmed, innocent victims, be at the mercy of “illegally” armed perpetrators of crime, thanks to your criminal government’s laws. Just this one point, on its own, ensures a drastic reduction in criminal behavior, as the risk of engaging in such, could cost a person their life. I’ll have more to add below…..

So you better believe it Mickey, the bad guys would certainly give a damn about my rights, if for no other reason, but for self preservation and definitely more than they do today, under your current, criminal government system. Private criminals have always been a tiny minority in any society, they are easily dealt with under laissez faire.

Korimyr the Rat wrote:
Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.


You’re being presumptuous Mickey! Voting? What makes you think, I’d be part of such an absurdity? Do I seem like some irrational statist to you? Do I resemble you? Ehh….. Mickey, Mickey…..you’re not so fine….

Passport? You want to take my passport???!!! (Funny, how statists always want to take something from people.) Oh, all right, just for you. BUT,…… then give me my money back, with interest! (ie. Cost of passport, cost of photos, the cost of my time on an hourly basis, the cost of getting a second opinion from my lawyers, the cost of my transportation to said lawyers, etc…) Then you statist confiscator, you can have my passport! Oh, another thing I forgot to mention Mickey, which one would you like, as I hold several? It’s a kind of, de facto insurance policy, against statists such as yourself!

I take it you obviously support this statist license, for alleged “free” mobility. To you it seems, human beings have no right to move freely, they must at all times carry this outrageous permit for movement. SLAVES need PERMITS for movement!!! And it is SLAVERY, which you are supporting and defending! You should be ashamed of yourself Mickey, ashamed!

“Get the hell out of your country!!!” Mickey, pleeeeeease……get a grip!!! You are so out of touch with reality, that your fictional statist country, is interfering with your better judgment, if any. Besides, have your slave masters licensed you to handle real estate? Or are you now operating on the black market? And did you check with the native Indian tribes????? You know the ones….. The ones your forefathers butchered in the name of the state….. Remember those victims??? Those property owners!!!

Finally, we can turn to the “payment for society’s protection” issue. Say, didn’t some poster recently educate you about the term “society?” Have you learned nothing at all??? Oh well, here we go again…..society - no such entity - it’s an abstraction - a concept - doesn’t exist in reality…..only individual beings exist. Next – I object to extortion at the point of a gun, society or no society. You, you ilk, your criminal government..…don’t do me no favors, just leave me be! I’ll pay for my own protection, thank you, as indeed, you should for yours. But unlike you, I would never, ever, want to force you, to pay for me, see the difference?

And remember this truism: Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better, including protection for its customers. (This is the point you can add, to the prior list above.) Note: Its customers……not….. its slaves! Note: There is no force used…..only voluntary agreements…. This “small” difference is indeed, a matter of life and death. Learn the issues correctly, then proudly be, an intellectual for freedom and not its opposite, which is oppression! The choice is yours….. I hope you’ll make the right one.

Ps. In the interest of furthering your basic education, I’d be happy to recommend a list of reading material and free of charge too, I might add. This is certainly more than you would do for me, seeing as you just want to, take away my passport, then use force, to kick me out of the country, because I disagree with you! Civilizes behavior….. indeed![/quote]

[BlackOps]

TheKrava wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote:
BlackOps wrote: ... but I and millions like me, do not wish to associate with criminals and murderers, in the "process" of their abusive, coercive and murderous decision making.

Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.

Or is it just paying for society's protection that you object to?

:clap:

That's exactly what I say!!!!!!!!!



And there are rational reasons, why, that's exactly what you shouldn't say! Learn them! And stop embarrassing yourself in public, like this!

[Korimyr the Rat]

BlackOps wrote: First: Add up the number of men, women and children murdered by the government, then compare it to the mafia.

Add up all of the roads built, universities founded, and scientific discoveries funded by the Mafia. Does the Mafia provide homes for orphaned children? Does it clean up pollution, protect natural resources, or protect the commercial interests of anyone else?

Far as I can tell, the only service in which the Mafia competes with the government is small-business loans, and I hate to tell you but the government comes out looking a lot cleaner on that front, too.

BlackOps wrote: Second: In a laissez faire society, the mafia is largely out of business.

Heh. You think anyone else is prepared to step in and provide those products and services? They wouldn't be able to without resorting to the Mafia's tactics-- and no government to stop them.

You're not putting the Mafia out of business. You're handing it the entire economy.

BlackOps wrote: Third: In a free society, everything is privately owned. This includes streets, parks, etc… The owners of these assets seek a good return. They protect their investments. This guarantees less street crime and a safer environment for all.

In a civilized society, I don't have to pay every time I want to use the roads, the parks, or the police. See, the owners of those assets, being myself and my fellow citizens, want a good return on our investment and that involves not having these services denied to us.

And your guarantee of less street crime is patently ridiculous, since you've removed the only means of preventing corporate warfare. Destroying the competition is a very effective expenditure of resources.

BlackOps wrote: Fourth: In a free society, anyone may be armed, there is no prohibition against carrying weapons. No longer would “legally” disarmed, innocent victims, be at the mercy of “illegally” armed perpetrators of crime...

It is on this point, and this point alone, that I will agree with you. Laws which disarm private and law-abiding civilians are an inexcusable atrocity; they are nothing short of a crime against humanity.

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.
BlackOps wrote: You’re being presumptuous Mickey! Voting? What makes you think, I’d be part of such an absurdity?

Thank the gods for small favors.

BlackOps wrote: You want to take my passport? Oh, all right, just for you. BUT,…… then give me my money back, with interest! (ie. Cost of passport, cost of photos, the cost of my time on an hourly basis, the cost of getting a second opinion from my lawyers, the cost of my transportation to said lawyers, etc…)

Passport is government property, and the money you paid for it covered the labor and administration costs of the organization which issued it to you. Your legal services are your own damned business, which the government cannot be expected to be held responsible for.

I would love to see you try to take similar claims to any private business-- especially without a government behind you to enforce your legitimate claims in civil court.

BlackOps wrote: And did you check with the native Indian tribes????? You know the ones….. The ones your forefathers butchered in the name of the state….. Remember those victims??? Those property owners!!!

Funny, I seem to recall that it was civilians that started it. Kept ignoring the government's attempts to enforce the property and territory claims of the natives, until the natives used force to defend themselves. Then, of course, it was political pressure from the private citizens that motivated the government to go to war-- protecting the lives and interests of the people it belongs to.

And considering that you're living in the same land and making no moves towards reparations, your argument is as hypocritical as it is ridiculous. So, do you enjoy living in a house built upon a foundation of blood?

BlackOps wrote: Say, didn’t some poster recently educate you about the term “society?”

I seem to recall the irresponsible and insensible rantings of one of your cronies, yes. Of course, you and your ilk are still completely and utterly disregarding the fact that you weren't born full-grown, fully-educated, with a full set of teeth and a buffalo rifle.

Without society, you would never have survived long enough to irritate me with these childish tantrums.

BlackOps wrote: And remember this truism: Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better, including protection for its customers.

There's a reason it's a "truism" and not a "truth". It's utter nonsense, spoon-fed to impressionable young minds to justify benefitting from your tax dollars without having to pay their fair share.

Basically, it's the grown-up version of your position, except they're a lot better at it.

BlackOps wrote: Learn the issues correctly, then proudly be, an intellectual for freedom and not its opposite, which is oppression!

You know nothing of oppression. I would normally include my sincere hope that you never do... but hopefully it might prove educational. Of course, if you survived, it would probably be at the expense and effort of some government which had foolishly decided you were worth rescuing.

[BlackOps]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: BlackOps wrote: First: Add up the number of men, women and children murdered by the government, then compare it to the mafia.

Add up all of the roads built, universities founded, and scientific discoveries funded by the Mafia. Does the Mafia provide homes for orphaned children? Does it clean up pollution, protect natural resources, or protect the commercial interests of anyone else?

Far as I can tell, the only service in which the Mafia competes with the government is small-business loans, and I hate to tell you but the government comes out looking a lot cleaner on that front, too.

BlackOps wrote: Second: In a laissez faire society, the mafia is largely out of business.

Heh. You think anyone else is prepared to step in and provide those products and services? They wouldn't be able to without resorting to the Mafia's tactics-- and no government to stop them.

You're not putting the Mafia out of business. You're handing it the entire economy.

BlackOps wrote: Third: In a free society, everything is privately owned. This includes streets, parks, etc… The owners of these assets seek a good return. They protect their investments. This guarantees less street crime and a safer environment for all.

In a civilized society, I don't have to pay every time I want to use the roads, the parks, or the police. See, the owners of those assets, being myself and my fellow citizens, want a good return on our investment and that involves not having these services denied to us.

And your guarantee of less street crime is patently ridiculous, since you've removed the only means of preventing corporate warfare. Destroying the competition is a very effective expenditure of resources.

BlackOps wrote: Fourth: In a free society, anyone may be armed, there is no prohibition against carrying weapons. No longer would “legally” disarmed, innocent victims, be at the mercy of “illegally” armed perpetrators of crime...

It is on this point, and this point alone, that I will agree with you. Laws which disarm private and law-abiding civilians are an inexcusable atrocity; they are nothing short of a crime against humanity.

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Then quit voting, turn in your passport, and get the hell out of my country.
BlackOps wrote: You’re being presumptuous Mickey! Voting? What makes you think, I’d be part of such an absurdity?

Thank the gods for small favors.

BlackOps wrote: You want to take my passport? Oh, all right, just for you. BUT,…… then give me my money back, with interest! (ie. Cost of passport, cost of photos, the cost of my time on an hourly basis, the cost of getting a second opinion from my lawyers, the cost of my transportation to said lawyers, etc…)

Passport is government property, and the money you paid for it covered the labor and administration costs of the organization which issued it to you. Your legal services are your own damned business, which the government cannot be expected to be held responsible for.

I would love to see you try to take similar claims to any private business-- especially without a government behind you to enforce your legitimate claims in civil court.

BlackOps wrote: And did you check with the native Indian tribes????? You know the ones….. The ones your forefathers butchered in the name of the state….. Remember those victims??? Those property owners!!!

Funny, I seem to recall that it was civilians that started it. Kept ignoring the government's attempts to enforce the property and territory claims of the natives, until the natives used force to defend themselves. Then, of course, it was political pressure from the private citizens that motivated the government to go to war-- protecting the lives and interests of the people it belongs to.

And considering that you're living in the same land and making no moves towards reparations, your argument is as hypocritical as it is ridiculous. So, do you enjoy living in a house built upon a foundation of blood?

BlackOps wrote: Say, didn’t some poster recently educate you about the term “society?”

I seem to recall the irresponsible and insensible rantings of one of your cronies, yes. Of course, you and your ilk are still completely and utterly disregarding the fact that you weren't born full-grown, fully-educated, with a full set of teeth and a buffalo rifle.

Without society, you would never have survived long enough to irritate me with these childish tantrums.

BlackOps wrote: And remember this truism: Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better, including protection for its customers.

There's a reason it's a "truism" and not a "truth". It's utter nonsense, spoon-fed to impressionable young minds to justify benefitting from your tax dollars without having to pay their fair share.

Basically, it's the grown-up version of your position, except they're a lot better at it.

BlackOps wrote: Learn the issues correctly, then proudly be, an intellectual for freedom and not its opposite, which is oppression!

You know nothing of oppression. I would normally include my sincere hope that you never do... but hopefully it might prove educational. Of course, if you survived, it would probably be at the expense and effort of some government which had foolishly decided you were worth rescuing.

I don't normally permit, irrational, statist, evildoers, to set my mental agenda BUT, in your case I'll make an exception!

However, I'm quite busy at the moment and will clean up the floor with you at some future date, if ever I decide to bother.

PS. I hear you've been whining to management....poor baby..... did you also "RAT" on other kids, when you were at school? That figures!

PS2. As for: Korimyr the Rat wrote:"Kills With His Heart." NO, just KILLS!

[Korimyr the Rat]

I reported the quote distortion, since it was dishonest and reprehensible.

I did not report the repeated insults against me-- and I'm not going to report them this time, either-- but I have already been warned for mine against you. As far as I am concerned, this conversation is over.

[Phaedrus]

One can hardly help but notice that the most hateful rhetoric, here, seems to be coming mainly (or at least initially, in each thread) from the anarchists. Is there anything new under the sun?

As to the question of protecting freedom by limiting freedom, the paradox is genuine; absolute freedom is, by extension, NO freedom. Whatever one person is free to build or create, another would be free to destroy. Property becomes a myth, when any person (or group) stronger than you can simply take what they like, by force. In effect, anarchy is the default setting of the world, and is quickly replaced by the brutalities of mob- and gang-rule. Human societies form out of an inherent desire to IMPROVE the situation.

The balance we seek: My freedoms end where yours begin, and vice-versa.

[hemlock]

I believe to put limits on a group of people's freedom is taking their freedom away. If someone yells fire when there is no fire that is their right and when you say they cant do that then your taking away their freedom. Total freedom in my opinion no one should have because with freedom comes power and with power people are corrupted. Total freedom would be anarchy.

[EugenicHegemony]

hemlock wrote: I believe to put limits on a group of people's freedom is taking their freedom away. If someone yells fire when there is no fire that is their right and when you say they cant do that then your taking away their freedom. Total freedom in my opinion no one should have because with freedom comes power and with power people are corrupted. Total freedom would be anarchy.



Well, which would you rather prefer?

[hemlock]

Total freedom would be a huge mistake because if would let people do what ever they wanted with out any laws or restrictions. For example, New Orleans right now and much of Louisiana it experiencing this problem where people prowl the streets freely carrying automatic weapons and doing as they please. If everyone constantly says how bad of shape New Orleans is in then how could they want the rest of the world to be like this.

[EugenicHegemony]

hemlock wrote: Total freedom would be a huge mistake because if would let people do what ever they wanted with out any laws or restrictions. For example, New Orleans right now and much of Louisiana it experiencing this problem where people prowl the streets freely carrying automatic weapons and doing as they please. If everyone constantly says how bad of shape New Orleans is in then how could they want the rest of the world to be like this.

The market would naturally bring about working order. New Orleans is fine, and it was the state police who killed and blamed it on phantom snipers.

I'll ask you again: Well, which would you rather prefer?

[Seapearl]

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

That's a major belief of the Liberal School of political thought, the fear of masses taking control of everything, the demerit of the individual, as a person not interested or capable of getting involved in politics. The whole theory of checks and balances on which the American Constitution of Madison is based reflects the need to limit freedom in order to protect it.

The definition of power provided by M.Weber shows the limitation of freedom. It goes like this: someone has power when he can impose his desire/opinions on someone else either the latter agrees or not. When there's power, there's subsequent limitation of freedom. What differnciates the whole thing is when power is legitimate based on rational inclination of the object and on impersonal rules. This kind of power, the legitimate one, is more stable.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Seapearl wrote: TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

That's a major belief of the Liberal School of political thought, the fear of masses taking control of everything, the demerit of the individual, as a person not interested or capable of getting involved in politics. The whole theory of checks and balances on which the American Constitution of Madison is based reflects the need to limit freedom in order to protect it.

You've got it wrong Liberalism is not the fear of the mob, and it is the liberation of the indivdual from the collective will of the mob.

You cannot be a free man whilst in the mob.


Quote:
The definition of power provided by M.Weber shows the limitation of freedom. It goes like this: someone has power when he can impose his desire/opinions on someone else either the latter agrees or not. When there's power, there's subsequent limitation of freedom. What differnciates the whole thing is when power is legitimate based on rational inclination of the object and on impersonal rules. This kind of power, the legitimate one, is more stable.

Wrong, let me take a better Philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan he states quite correcelty than a man is free when his is in a state of nature. That is he is held by no constrainsts of society and thus and thus he is free to do whatever his will disires, to him there is no crime or morality.

[hemlock]

thefranzkafkafront- Wrong, let me take a better Philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan he states quite correcelty than a man is free when his is in a state of nature. That is he is held by no constrainsts of society and thus and thus he is free to do whatever his will disires, to him there is no crime or morality.[/quote]


Thomas Hobbes is correct in saying this but we do not live in this state of nature. Nor are we born with no morality. Thomas Hobbes wrote this based in a theoretical situation.

[Seapearl]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Seapearl wrote: TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

That's a major belief of the Liberal School of political thought, the fear of masses taking control of everything, the demerit of the individual, as a person not interested or capable of getting involved in politics. The whole theory of checks and balances on which the American Constitution of Madison is based reflects the need to limit freedom in order to protect it.

You've got it wrong Liberalism is not the fear of the mob, and it is the liberation of the indivdual from the collective will of the mob.

You cannot be a free man whilst in the mob.


Quote:
The definition of power provided by M.Weber shows the limitation of freedom. It goes like this: someone has power when he can impose his desire/opinions on someone else either the latter agrees or not. When there's power, there's subsequent limitation of freedom. What differnciates the whole thing is when power is legitimate based on rational inclination of the object and on impersonal rules. This kind of power, the legitimate one, is more stable.

Wrong, let me take a better Philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan he states quite correcelty than a man is free when his is in a state of nature. That is he is held by no constrainsts of society and thus and thus he is free to do whatever his will disires, to him there is no crime or morality.

What do you mean by "better philosopher"? M.Webber's work in political sociology is indisputable. He has studied the forms of legitimate power, of bureaucracy and the different aspects of power as they occure in human reltaions. T.Hobbes is another case, also a fan of liberalism but at its more extreme form, he believes that people are by nature selfish, fighting for their own interests which makes smooth cohabitation impossible without an unltimate authrotarian power able to limit these conflicts of egoism.

As far as liberalism is concerned, I believe we're saying the same thing but in a different way. People are selfish, caring for their own interests (property etc.) but also rational. Then there's the matter of equality, when Locke and Mill talked about equality, they didn't mean exactly what we say these days, large groups were excluded from the right of voting. Contemporary theorists of liberalism view political indifference and abstention as a blessing. There's this reluctance towards ordinary people because they're usually passive, ignorant, facts that make the governance of society by talented leaders or elit indispensable. For instance, according to M.Webber the mob isn't the subject but the object of politics, mobs must respond to political choices in a disciplined way turning the people's dominance into a symbolism. In fact, freedom can only exist within the mob but in the framework of objective and impersonal rules. As Locke says, at the end of Law there's Tyranie.

[gymark]

Anyis wrote: The United States is governed by a limited democracy. I agree that in order to protect certain rights, some freedoms must be given up. A good example of this is freedom of speech. It is illegal to yell fire in a public place if there is no cause for concern. You gave up this freedom the moment you were born into this society. However, it was given up not simply to restrict your behavior, but to restrict the behavior of all your fellow citizens who might cause civil unrest by frightening people with false alarms. Our entire society is based on Limited rights. We give up certain rights in order to ensure the greater good of our society.

That hasnt got alot to do with rights and freedom, any person shouting fire when there isnt one is trying to cause unrest and weather or not it is illegal, shouting fire is not freedom, shouting fire is stupidity.

Freedom has to be limited to the extent that what you want to do does not affect what somebody else wants to do

[nrhy]

Freedom is where the state of mind is released from any restrictions whatsoever, so yelling fire is not stupidity, instead its expressing freedom of speech. Freedom is when we can express any thought, belief, emotion, or slightest movement...even when it may endanger others, this is called individual freedom, where anything can be done, anything can be said...thus, result is TOTAL anarchy....

[_reticentness]

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

in a way. It's not TRUE freedom if you limit stuff. But to protect what freedoms we have we do have to limit some things.