The cost to each company of going to war over loud music is likely all the rule needed. To save them further expense, perhaps they could use the services of an arbitrator to help them arrive at a mutually agreeable decision.
[/quote]
The arbitrator rules in one’s favor, the other decides they don’t like it and so they simply ignore it. Now what?
Edit: Or, better yet, one of them doesn’t agree to go to arbitration. So?[/quote]
Like I said, the companies could go to war if they deem it worth the cost. I tend to doubt that you, the fraternity, and your respective agencies would let it go that point.[/quote]
And yet there are hundreds of thousands of other claims made every year by one party against another, and many of them are well beyond the point where they become serious enough to warrant violent conflict. And so, we’d have all of these miniature wars breaking out all over our towns and cities. You know, I’ve always thought that what my hometown was missing was a no-man’s-land and a couple of minefields.
Why did the billionaire do this? Would he purchase your property, too? What if Bill Gates buys the city in which you live, posts “No Trespassing” signs everywhere, then pays off both the state and federal government to keep you at home? Are you stuck?
[/quote]
This is a violation of the rules of our little game here. We’re talking about what our systems allow. Yours allows the billionaire to do what he did, and it offers no recourse to you. You must sit in your home and die.
My system does not allow this to happen. If it does, in the context of my system, then it is no longer my system, but another. And it’s not another that we’re discussing, but mine.
This is the difference between calling American football a violent sport because within the context of its rules it allows for enough physical trauma to result in brain damage and death, and calling ping pong a violent sport because your neighbors were playing one day and one of them became so frustrated that he broke his paddle in half and stabbed the other to death with the jagged end. The latter does not make ping pong a violent sport because the hypothetical event in question is born not of its nature but as a violation of its nature.[/quote]
Then ignore the, “then pays off…,” part. I imagine there are legal ways for a city to be sold(eminent domain?) to a high enough bidder.
Then ignore the, “then pays off…,” part. I imagine there are legal ways for a city to be sold(eminent domain?) to a high enough bidder.[/quote]
I very much doubt it. I have so many laws preventing this sort of thing, and so many courts to which I could go and undoubtedly win. You’d have to come up with the specific legal way for this to happen in order for me to consider this as a legitimate defense of anarchy, and you’d have to be sure that it violates no oblique statute which would preclude it from going down (which it absolutely would do). And, again, I am sure that no such legal avenue exists.
And even if it did, then I could just pass a law fixing the loophole. Problem solved.
But your system-it allows this to happen. So, I repeat my question: You would simply have to sit down and die, and you’d be happy to do it because it comes within the context of your preferred sociopolitical arrangement?
The cost to each company of going to war over loud music is likely all the rule needed. To save them further expense, perhaps they could use the services of an arbitrator to help them arrive at a mutually agreeable decision.
[/quote]
The arbitrator rules in one’s favor, the other decides they don’t like it and so they simply ignore it. Now what?
Edit: Or, better yet, one of them doesn’t agree to go to arbitration. So?[/quote]
Like I said, the companies could go to war if they deem it worth the cost. I tend to doubt that you, the fraternity, and your respective agencies would let it go that point.[/quote]
And yet there are hundreds of thousands of other claims made every year by one party against another, and many of them are well beyond the point where they become serious enough to warrant violent conflict. And so, we’d have all of these miniature wars breaking out all over our towns and cities. You know, I’ve always thought that what my hometown was missing was a no-man’s-land and a couple of minefields.[/quote]
Is legal recourse what keeps you and me from hiring someone to find the other’s location so that one can shoot the other and claim victory in this debate?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is legal recourse what keeps you and I from hiring someone to find the other’s location so that one can shoot the other and claim victory in this debate? [/quote]
Possibly.
Why do you think completely normal people choose to murder one another?
Do you really think that they’re just mentally ill/evil/crazy people and it hasn’t manifested itself till then?
Or they’re normal people driven to murder by the circumstance/event and emotion?
Most of us simply haven’t experienced that kind of circumstance/event.
But I have no doubt in my mind that I’d go batshit crazy on anyone who breaks into my house and I have a weapon on me.
Then ignore the, “then pays off…,” part. I imagine there are legal ways for a city to be sold(eminent domain?) to a high enough bidder.[/quote]
I very much doubt it. I have so many laws preventing this sort of thing, and so many courts to which I could go and undoubtedly win. You’d have to come up with the specific legal way for this to happen in order for me to consider this as a legitimate defense of anarchy, and you’d have to be sure that it violates no oblique statute which would preclude it from going down (which it absolutely would do). And, again, I am sure that no such legal avenue exists.
And even if it did, then I could just pass a law fixing the loophole. Problem solved.
But your system-it allows this to happen. So, I repeat my question: You would simply have to sit down and die, and you’d be happy to do it because it comes within the context of your preferred sociopolitical arrangement?
[/quote].
Yes, I suppose my system technically allows it to happen. It’s hard to argue in favor of freedom when the other side is utopianizing(word?) its argument. You would have a convincing argument that enslavement is preferable to freedom if you asked, “Would you rather be enslaved by a Christ-like master who allows you unlimited freedom and money, or be free in a world in which you have to compete and deal with numerous dangers and problems?”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is legal recourse what keeps you and I from hiring someone to find the other’s location so that one can shoot the other and claim victory in this debate? [/quote]
Possibly.
Why do you think completely normal people choose to murder one another?
Do you really think that they’re just mentally ill/evil/crazy people and it hasn’t manifested itself till then?
Or they’re normal people driven to murder by the circumstance/event and emotion?
Most of us simply haven’t experienced that kind of circumstance/event.
But I have no doubt in my mind that I’d go batshit crazy on anyone who breaks into my house and I have a weapon on me.
And that knowledge terrifies me.[/quote]
If the knowledge that you would defend your person and property against an aggressor terrifies you, then I am not likely to change your mind or convince you otherwise.
Many murders occur because of property disputes over property which is technically illegal, and thus there is no legal recourse for the disputants.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is legal recourse what keeps you and I from hiring someone to find the other’s location so that one can shoot the other and claim victory in this debate? [/quote]
Possibly.
Why do you think completely normal people choose to murder one another?
Do you really think that they’re just mentally ill/evil/crazy people and it hasn’t manifested itself till then?
Or they’re normal people driven to murder by the circumstance/event and emotion?
Most of us simply haven’t experienced that kind of circumstance/event.
But I have no doubt in my mind that I’d go batshit crazy on anyone who breaks into my house and I have a weapon on me.
And that knowledge terrifies me.[/quote]
If the knowledge that you would defend your person and property against an aggressor terrifies you, then I am not likely to change your mind or convince you otherwise.
Many murders occur because of property disputes over property which is technically illegal, and thus there is no legal recourse for the disputants.[/quote]
No, the thought that I would go batshit crazy terrifies me. There is a big fucking difference between defending your home and going batshit crazy, one that is lost on a lot of people it seems.
But it’s obvious that I shouldn’t bother arguing with you, because you clearly missed why I intentionally used batshit crazy instead of defending.
Then ignore the, “then pays off…,” part. I imagine there are legal ways for a city to be sold(eminent domain?) to a high enough bidder.[/quote]
I very much doubt it. I have so many laws preventing this sort of thing, and so many courts to which I could go and undoubtedly win. You’d have to come up with the specific legal way for this to happen in order for me to consider this as a legitimate defense of anarchy, and you’d have to be sure that it violates no oblique statute which would preclude it from going down (which it absolutely would do). And, again, I am sure that no such legal avenue exists.
And even if it did, then I could just pass a law fixing the loophole. Problem solved.
But your system-it allows this to happen. So, I repeat my question: You would simply have to sit down and die, and you’d be happy to do it because it comes within the context of your preferred sociopolitical arrangement?
[/quote].
Yes, I suppose my system technically allows it to happen. It’s hard to argue in favor of freedom when the other side is utopianizing(word?) its argument. You would have a convincing argument that enslavement is preferable to freedom if you asked, “Would you rather be enslaved by a Christ-like master who allows you unlimited freedom and money, or be free in a world in which you have to compete and deal with numerous dangers and problems?”
[/quote]
A slaver cannot allow unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is freedom. You’ve basically described a blue car that is red, or a circle with ten 90-degree angles.
Then ignore the, “then pays off…,” part. I imagine there are legal ways for a city to be sold(eminent domain?) to a high enough bidder.[/quote]
I very much doubt it. I have so many laws preventing this sort of thing, and so many courts to which I could go and undoubtedly win. You’d have to come up with the specific legal way for this to happen in order for me to consider this as a legitimate defense of anarchy, and you’d have to be sure that it violates no oblique statute which would preclude it from going down (which it absolutely would do). And, again, I am sure that no such legal avenue exists.
And even if it did, then I could just pass a law fixing the loophole. Problem solved.
But your system-it allows this to happen. So, I repeat my question: You would simply have to sit down and die, and you’d be happy to do it because it comes within the context of your preferred sociopolitical arrangement?
[/quote].
Yes, I suppose my system technically allows it to happen. It’s hard to argue in favor of freedom when the other side is utopianizing(word?) its argument. You would have a convincing argument that enslavement is preferable to freedom if you asked, “Would you rather be enslaved by a Christ-like master who allows you unlimited freedom and money, or be free in a world in which you have to compete and deal with numerous dangers and problems?”
[/quote]
A slaver cannot allow unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is freedom. You’ve basically described a blue car that is red, or a circle with ten 90-degree angles.[/quote]
You know what I meant: unlimited until master says otherwise-you know, slave can work for anybody he chooses, go anywhere he chooses, do whatever he wants, until master decides differently. Unlike when I talk to some others here, I know that you understood what I meant.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is legal recourse what keeps you and I from hiring someone to find the other’s location so that one can shoot the other and claim victory in this debate? [/quote]
Possibly.
Why do you think completely normal people choose to murder one another?
Do you really think that they’re just mentally ill/evil/crazy people and it hasn’t manifested itself till then?
Or they’re normal people driven to murder by the circumstance/event and emotion?
Most of us simply haven’t experienced that kind of circumstance/event.
But I have no doubt in my mind that I’d go batshit crazy on anyone who breaks into my house and I have a weapon on me.
And that knowledge terrifies me.[/quote]
If the knowledge that you would defend your person and property against an aggressor terrifies you, then I am not likely to change your mind or convince you otherwise.
Many murders occur because of property disputes over property which is technically illegal, and thus there is no legal recourse for the disputants.[/quote]
No, the thought that I would go batshit crazy terrifies me. There is a big fucking difference between defending your home and going batshit crazy, one that is lost on a lot of people it seems.
But it’s obvious that I shouldn’t bother arguing with you, because you clearly missed why I intentionally used batshit crazy instead of defending.
[/quote]
You may need to define “batshit crazy,” because in my world, that’s a perfectly acceptable response to a home invasion.
Like I said, the companies could go to war if they deem it worth the cost. I tend to doubt that you, the fraternity, and your respective agencies would let it go that point.
[/quote]
Ha. The history of mankind says people always have gone to war whether they grouped themselves by families, tribes, estates, kingdoms or countries. There is zero logic or evidence that says if all of a sudden they do it by “companies” wars will become extinct. Or even somewhat diminished.
[/quote]
This.
The cost of war hasn’t stopped countries, why would it stop nebulous psuedo-states that stand in for countries? What is the point of such a grand scheme that amounts to at best a dull approximation of the “freedom” we have now, and, at worst, chaos and suffering all around? How can someone possibly wish such a thing upon himself?
You know what I meant: unlimited until master says otherwise-you know, slave can work for anybody he chooses, go anywhere he chooses, do whatever he wants, until master decides differently. Unlike when I talk to some others here, I know that you understood what I meant.[/quote]
Fair enough, but then my contention would be that such an arrangement is not in fact preferable to true freedom.
Like I said, the companies could go to war if they deem it worth the cost. I tend to doubt that you, the fraternity, and your respective agencies would let it go that point.
[/quote]
Ha. The history of mankind says people always have gone to war whether they grouped themselves by families, tribes, estates, kingdoms or countries. There is zero logic or evidence that says if all of a sudden they do it by “companies” wars will become extinct. Or even somewhat diminished.
[/quote]
Over loud music? I believe I’ve already stated that I’m not making an argument for some utopia, just freedom. If you’re paying for something, don’t want the service and stop paying, a private business loses money. Another business will likely try to provide you a service you want. A state does not operate by market rules. Also, I have no idea how free men would associate-the defense company theory is speculation.
Of course, there’s always the argument that we should depend on and trust the state…
You know what I meant: unlimited until master says otherwise-you know, slave can work for anybody he chooses, go anywhere he chooses, do whatever he wants, until master decides differently. Unlike when I talk to some others here, I know that you understood what I meant.[/quote]
Fair enough, but then my contention would be that such an arrangement is not in fact preferable to true freedom.[/quote]
You know what I meant: unlimited until master says otherwise-you know, slave can work for anybody he chooses, go anywhere he chooses, do whatever he wants, until master decides differently. Unlike when I talk to some others here, I know that you understood what I meant.[/quote]
Fair enough, but then my contention would be that such an arrangement is not in fact preferable to true freedom.[/quote]
Welcome to anarchy.[/quote]
Welcome to anarchy is the banner that hangs in front of a great hall within which every thinkable atrocity is being visited upon the innocent, living and dead alike. And nothing more.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A state does not operate by market rules. …[/quote]
I disagree
All human interactions operate by market rules
If/when an individual perceives the marginal benefit to exceed the marginal cost of revolting - that is the exact nanosecond that said individual does so
Can it anarchy or whatever, that’s just how it goes
And anyways Nick, consider this: What we have right now is exactly what you’ve described.
An entity gained favor and established itself, and now exerts its will. And if you hate it enough, you can make war upon it. Isn’t this exactly what you’re arguing for? How is this not the government of the United States of America?