Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

davis  edberg  GOAT  

Latest topics
» I Have A Question
Yesterday at 10:24 pm by bogbrush

» The End od Internet Neutrality?
Yesterday at 10:20 pm by bogbrush

» Federer taps in BBC award
Yesterday at 8:22 pm by noleisthebest

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Yesterday at 5:47 pm by Tenez

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:22 am by bogbrush

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:17 pm by Tenez

» The Best Shot Of The Year!
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:59 pm by noleisthebest

» Djoko takes Stepanek on
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:53 pm by noleisthebest

» Nadal whines over surface match ups with Federer in 2017
Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:44 pm by noleisthebest

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Page 15 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:09 pm

Wait a sec.
Your punishment for a murder is an embargo against everyone stopping trading with him?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:23 pm

bogbrush wrote:The way I see it is that the nature of people is formed by their environment, but we have immense potential for either way.
I certainly agree that human behavior will depend on the type of society we live in.  I grew up in communist Eastern Europe where people's income was largely independent of how hard they worked.  Not surprisingly, people in general did not work that hard.

But I also think that many human traits; e.g., general selfishness, desire to help self at the expense of others, thirst for power in some, etc.; are just what they are, and a functional society needs to learn to live with them, rather than hope to abolish them.

bogbrush wrote:As for law, I refer to the rules we all know exist and don’t need a State. Don’t harm, keep your word, respect property, enforced by the most powerful of sanctions - enforced disengagement from the rest of the people. Or do people on here believe they only refrain from these acts because of an Act of Parliament?
I do not think this can work.  I think this kind of approach can work in cases where having a few "bad apples" does not topple the system.  Many areas of commerce would likely qualify.  Unscrupulous business people who try to cheat their customers may cheat a few but ultimately customers can find out and start taking their business elsewhere - so the system can be self-adjusting, or what I would call "stable".

But I do not think running a Stateless society qualifies.  A few people bent on power are enough to potentially cause its downfall.  In that sense I would say a Stateless society would likely be "unstable".

I think the people who run the state will always tend to be among the more crooked and power-hungry ones, and yet I still believe we need to live with that, and just try to influence the state as best we can.  An alternative to a state with bad leaders but where we have some level of influence is not a stateless society, but rather a state where we will have no influence.

I would be quite happy if you were right and I was wrong, I just do not think it is so.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:37 am

What actually does work is tough sentences.  But when your society is governed by the rich for the rich - and human greed rules supreme - you are knackered.  We have no safeguards against it.  And we should.  Take Hillary Clinton... she is quite literally a criminal.  And she's not in jail.  Any normal average Joe out there would be in serious trouble.  But she's loaded and has powerful friends.  So... nothing is done. 

And that's in a country with one of the most free societies in history (whether you like it or not).  What we need is a system that deals harshly with those who are corrupt and those who aid and abet it.  And I don't mean a 10 year trial with a slap on wrist at end of it.  I mean a system that doesn't allow things to drag on - and a system where the guilty party do hard time in a dank jail as a minimum, and get killed as a maximum (depending on crime).

That's how you solve it.  Little pussy ways of dealing with it will not work.  In any system.  At any level.  People have to fear being caught and fear the consequences.  Not laugh into the sunset with their million dollar homes.

Daniel

Posts : 3138
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:36 am

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:The way I see it is that the nature of people is formed by their environment, but we have immense potential for either way.
I certainly agree that human behavior will depend on the type of society we live in.  I grew up in communist Eastern Europe where people's income was largely independent of how hard they worked.  Not surprisingly, people in general did not work that hard.

But I also think that many human traits; e.g., general selfishness, desire to help self at the expense of others, thirst for power in some, etc.; are just what they are, and a functional society needs to learn to live with them, rather than hope to abolish them.

bogbrush wrote:As for law, I refer to the rules we all know exist and don’t need a State. Don’t harm, keep your word, respect property, enforced by the most powerful of sanctions - enforced disengagement from the rest of the people. Or do people on here believe they only refrain from these acts because of an Act of Parliament?
I do not think this can work.  I think this kind of approach can work in cases where having a few "bad apples" does not topple the system.  Many areas of commerce would likely qualify.  Unscrupulous business people who try to cheat their customers may cheat a few but ultimately customers can find out and start taking their business elsewhere - so the system can be self-adjusting, or what I would call "stable".

But I do not think running a Stateless society qualifies.  A few people bent on power are enough to potentially cause its downfall.  In that sense I would say a Stateless society would likely be "unstable".

I think the people who run the state will always tend to be among the more crooked and power-hungry ones, and yet I still believe we need to live with that, and just try to influence the state as best we can.  An alternative to a state with bad leaders but where we have some level of influence is not a stateless society, but rather a state where we will have no influence.

I would be quite happy if you were right and I was wrong, I just do not think it is so.
Yeah, I guess you get two answers depending on how the question is put.

If it’s “is the ideal the smallest conceivable State given the current situation” then I’d go along with your direction.

If it’s “what is the ideal model for the relationship between human beings” then I go with my model of freedom to associate with other humans limited only by commonly agreed principles of doing no harm, respecting property, and keeping ones word.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:31 am

When people say you need a State to provide education to poor people so they can have social mobility I always laugh.

Anyone ever heard of Abraham Lincoln?

As they say, the best jail cell is the one where you can’t see the bars.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:55 pm

bogbrush wrote:If it’s “is the ideal the smallest conceivable State given the current situation” then I’d go along with your direction.
Yes, I am with you on this (though maybe in terms of detail, I might not go quite as far as you would).  I also tend to be wary of government.

bogbrush wrote:If it’s “what is the ideal model for the relationship between human beings” then I go with my model of freedom to associate with other humans limited only by commonly agreed principles of doing no harm, respecting property, and keeping ones word.
We will just need to agree to disagree.  I do not disagree with this as a nice dream, but I think it is sort of like the communist ideal - it would not work well with real people.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:59 am

Bogbrush, rather than claiming that others can't think outside the box, I think it's time that you concede that your ideas are based unrealistic assumptions on how human behaviours would all be perfected under your system.

As I pointed out last week, your line of thinking is inherently flawed. You rely on some aspects of human behaviour for this model to work (self interest), but ignore other aspects such as malice.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:11 am

And again, as is clear to anyone who has followed the thread, when I asked you a tough sequence of questions, you stopped directly replying hoping some questionable claims and random anecdotes would be a substitute. It wasn't.

I'll give you another chance, I'll limit the questions to 4 at a time max:

1/ Your system would have no state authority with the right to punish murderers. They would be punished by everyone volunteering to not trade with him. What happens if the murderer had a big fanbase who all believed he was innocent despite evidence (as happens with many cults), and this big fanbase gave him living necessities for free. Or a powerful ally who secretly gave him help to live on and survive the embargo. The murderer would just get away with scott free.  

2/ Do you not think without the British army, wealthy people in the UK (or any country) could have militias which they use to their own personal gain, and which they use to limit the freedom you crave?

3/ You still haven't made clear how your system would limit air or water pollution. Air pollution for example kills thousands of people in London every year. Many people take part in mutually beneficial transactions which have a side effect of causing pollution.

4/ Monopolies. A wealthy person could just buy up all the transport links in a country, and massive increase the fares. It takes time to build new railways etc., so there many be several years of rip off prices. Then after the new transport links are built as competition, another billionaire could buy the whole lot again, exploit everyone, and continue the cycle. How would that be stopped?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:44 pm

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush, rather than claiming that others can't think outside the box, I think it's time that you concede that your ideas are based unrealistic assumptions on how human behaviours would all be perfected under your system.

As I pointed out last week, your line of thinking is inherently flawed. You rely on some aspects of human behaviour for this model to work (self interest), but ignore other aspects such as malice.
No, my principles are not based on perfecting human behaviour. Quite the reverse in fact.

The more you treat people irresponsibly, the more they will be irresponsible.
The more you make decisions for them, the fewer decisions they will make.
The more you limit their freedom to act, the less they will do.

This is really, really simple and obvious.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:46 pm

DECIMA wrote:And again, as is clear to anyone who has followed the thread, when I asked you a tough sequence of questions, you stopped directly replying hoping some questionable claims and random anecdotes would be a substitute. It wasn't.

I'll give you another chance, I'll limit the questions to 4 at a time max:

1/ Your system would have no state authority with the right to punish murderers. They would be punished by everyone volunteering to not trade with him. What happens if the murderer had a big fanbase who all believed he was innocent despite evidence (as happens with many cults), and this big fanbase gave him living necessities for free. Or a powerful ally who secretly gave him help to live on and survive the embargo. The murderer would just get away with scott free.  

2/ Do you not think without the British army, wealthy people in the UK (or any country) could have militias which they use to their own personal gain, and which they use to limit the freedom you crave?

3/ You still haven't made clear how your system would limit air or water pollution. Air pollution for example kills thousands of people in London every year. Many people take part in mutually beneficial transactions which have a side effect of causing pollution.

4/ Monopolies. A wealthy person could just buy up all the transport links in a country, and massive increase the fares. It takes time to build new railways etc., so there many be several years of rip off prices. Then after the new transport links are built as competition, another billionaire could buy the whole lot again, exploit everyone, and continue the cycle. How would that be stopped?
1. No, there would be no State protection for murderers. A person who acts in such a way could, with due process, forfeit the protection of the law. Think on that and reflect on how soft I'm being on murderers.

2. Oh I see, the threat of Armed intervention stops rich people from oppressing us all with their private armies. This is laughable.

3. And could be sued.

4. By not using them. They they're completely f*cked aren't they? Oh, and you do know that the State is what promotes oligopolies don't you?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:30 pm

bogbrush wrote:1. No, there would be no State protection for murderers. A person who acts in such a way could, with due process, forfeit the protection of the law. Think on that and reflect on how soft I'm being on murderers.
I want some more detail on how exactly murderers and thieves would be punished.

bogbrush wrote:2. Oh I see, the threat of Armed intervention stops rich people from oppressing us all with their private armies. This is laughable.
Correct. Over time your ideal land of liberty would become controlled by wealthy people with militias, who would take away the liberty you've sacrificed our current system for.
Explain how wealthy people with militias would be stopped.

bogbrush wrote:3. And could be sued.
Alright, tell me how that would work. Who would sue who? Millions of people cause air pollution, and that causes an extra 30% of people to die of asthma (but difficult to tell who exactly is in that extra 30%).
Who would sue who, and what would the consequences be?

bogbrush wrote:4. By not using them. They they're completely f*cked aren't they?
So people would have to stop using public transport completely?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:43 pm

1. Don’t you realise what it means to lose the protection of the law.

2. Nonsense.

3. Were you damaged and if so by what?

4. No, they’d make some more. Or do you imagine someone could buy all the roads? Who would they buy them from?

——————-

You still think you need a State to provide you with social mobility or have you quietly dropped that one?

You still think people will behave responsibly when responsibility to take all decisions is taken from them?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:33 am

bogbrush wrote:1. Don’t you realise what it means to lose the protection of the law.
Explain what would happen to a thief and a murderer. What if the two murder suspects were cult figures, and their own fanbase believe the other cult leader was guilty. Mob rule?

2. Nonsense.
Is that an argument?
Without a state military what is stopping a very wealthy person from owning a militia and using it to their own purposes? People love power.

3. Were you damaged and if so by what?
A family of an asthma sufferer who dies could say that the air pollution contributed to the death. Who would they sue?

4. No, they’d make some more. Or do you imagine someone could buy all the roads? Who would they buy them from?
It takes time to make more, and in that time the railway would make huge profit. As for roads, if all people using trains started using roads in a city, we would have intense air pollution and traffic would be at a standstill.

You still think you need a State to provide you with social mobility or have you quietly dropped that one?
Why would I have dropped it? You never actually made an argument against what I'm saying, you just stated I was wrong.
I can make my case again: Children of parents in poverty need access to education for free or social mobility will be hurt.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:22 am

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
You still think you need a State to provide you with social mobility or have you quietly dropped that one?
Why would I have dropped it? You never actually made an argument against what I'm saying, you just stated I was wrong.
I can make my case again: Children of parents in poverty need access to education for free or social mobility will be hurt.
No, they don’t. They need free access to markets and the incentive to strive.

Abraham Lincoln. Homeschooled kids. Successful early school leavers. They all disagree with you.


Last edited by bogbrush on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:28 am; edited 2 times in total

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:26 am

On your other stuff you seem to think the question is always “what happens if these things happened overnight” and everyone is like a domestic rabbit with the cage open plonked in a field. It’s like your education view - everyone has to be a wage slave begging for a licence and a job.

Without a State people organise to protect themselves, their property, and to expel offenders. It’s what you think the State does (it doesn’t) but without surrendering power or acquiescing in the sequestration of their assets to indulge other people’s desires.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:36 am

bogbrush wrote:On your other stuff you seem to think the question is always “what happens if these things happened overnight” and everyone is like a domestic rabbit with the cage open plonked in a field.
No it's not, you could easily just answer the question as if we've had your system for 100 years already.
This is the 4th time you've used this excuse to avoid answering questions directly and it's getting lame. I've already made clear that you can answer the points by talking about the change in society that would have come with your system.
Stop evading.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:07 am

I know you were wounded by everyone else telling you that you were all over the place, but don't think engaging in this sort of thing with me will end well for you.

I've explained over and over; the simple answer to all problems lies in voluntary co-operation in peoples self-interest. You think people have to be compelled to cooperate (it isn't therefore cooperation, it's coercion) whereas I know they don't. Faced with a situation where you either cooperate with your fellow humans to solve a problem or stand back and watch your own interests collapse people cooperate. And if individuals don't then let them play on their own.

They don't (much) right now of course because like you many have been brought up to think that Mummy is responsible to look after them, thus they staggeringly actually believe you need a State school to be able to change your life chances. The poor b@stards are thus trapped through beliefs into a crap system that sends them out totally unequipped to get on in life, stripped of originality and burdened with a load of "education" that is little more than State dogma, and sent out with their pathetic worthless degrees to a life of burger flipping. They'd have been vastly better off taught how to read, write and do maths (which almost all parents used to be able to do) and then brought up to believe the World is their "dangerous oyster" where they can get out and make stuff happen, and in the process acquire the hunger to learn to they find the sources of useful teaching that lie all around us, often completely for free (or even accompanied by income).

This kind of chronic domestication - evident in all the silly challenges you pose - is a gigantic problem for the West because the population are simply not ready for the challenges from the rest of the World. They actually think their State will safeguard them!!  Laugh

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:04 pm

I'm just making an observation that you're avoiding my questions, it's nothing personal against you, I'm not questioning your ability to answer at all. And you know me well enough to know that during a debate if you feel I'm being unfair or asking unreasonable questions I am happy to rephrase it. 

You've given an answer for education, why not do so for the other 4 questions directly?


bogbrush wrote:They'd have been vastly better off taught how to read, write and do maths (which almost all parents used to be able to do) and then brought up to believe the World is their "dangerous oyster" where they can get out and make stuff happen, and in the process acquire the hunger to learn to they find the sources of useful teaching that lie all around us, often completely for free (or even accompanied by income). 
It takes both knowledge and ability to teach, and I don't believe most parents would be able to teach their children to primary school (11yo) standard of science, maths, and english. What would children of inadequate parents do? If they don't learn literacy or numeracy at a young age, scientific studies have shown they'll be significantly disadvantaged for their whole life.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:00 pm

DECIMA wrote:I'm just making an observation that you're avoiding my questions, it's nothing personal against you, I'm not questioning your ability to answer at all. And you know me well enough to know that during a debate if you feel I'm being unfair or asking unreasonable questions I am happy to rephrase it. 

You've given an answer for education, why not do so for the other 4 questions directly?


bogbrush wrote:They'd have been vastly better off taught how to read, write and do maths (which almost all parents used to be able to do) and then brought up to believe the World is their "dangerous oyster" where they can get out and make stuff happen, and in the process acquire the hunger to learn to they find the sources of useful teaching that lie all around us, often completely for free (or even accompanied by income). 
It takes both knowledge and ability to teach, and I don't believe most parents would be able to teach their children to primary school (11yo) standard of science, maths, and english. What would children of inadequate parents do? If they don't learn literacy or numeracy at a young age, scientific studies have shown they'll be significantly disadvantaged for their whole life.

Parents don't need to, they can join together with neighbours and hire teachers, provide premises, and now we have the internet able to provide incredible reserves of teaching (I taught myself a pile of Further Maths topics that my son was learning, via the internet). Who needs the State? All the State does is monopolise, licence, misdirect and make it more expensive.

This simpering dependency on the State is awful. God knows how we would have advanced from the caves with it.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:14 pm

I don't agree with everything Decima is saying, but, hell BB... are you really trying to tell me a society can function without an army and governing body?  Really?  Did tribal instincts, hostile nations, and human instincts suddenly cease to exist?  How can a mostly right winger (I assume you are, since many of your political views are the same as mine) be arguing that a country needs no borders?  In fact, how can anyone argue that? No border = no country. The present systems exist precisely because your way doesn't work. Even remotely.  That's the evidence.
 but don't think engaging in this sort of thing with me will end well for you


Doh More narcissistic droning.

Daniel

Posts : 3138
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:31 am

Daniel wrote:The present systems exist precisely because your way doesn't work. Even remotely.
Yep.  BB spent pages and pages promoting virtues of natural selection but when it comes to political systems he is happy to claim - sans evidence - that a Stateless society that natural selection never brought to life (and from which we are seemingly further and further away - see European Union or the current US) is the best, and that it would be quite stable if it only existed.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:59 am

I didn’t say it would have no army, or borders, or law. quite the reverse.

I said those things don’t need a ruling State to exist.

I have no problem with the idea of an executive group paid to implement what people want, like any other hired hand, BUT I don't not accept that this should ever extend to imposing on anyone the wishes of others.

Thus;

- by all means if lots of people want to contribute to joined up healthcare then pay for it, but don’t compel anyone to contribute.
- create certification for professions if you want, but don’t ban anyone from offering their services so long as they do not misrepresent themselves, thereby breaking their word (so you can hire an unqualified accountant, Doctor, teacher if you want).
- don’t ban private conduct such as smoking, drug taking, etc. between people capable of making informed decisions (kids etc. can’t do that would fail the test of malice)
- have no obligations to others unless you elect to take them.


What we have now did not spontaneously arise, it is “Monarchy-lite”, a transfer of absolute power from someone who took it by violence to another body which imposes on the population no less (more in fact because it has the extra manpower). That’s not an exaggeration, it’s a fact that all our structures emanate from the Monarch so you’re dealing with a system rooted in violence and coercion. Don’t want to pay a TV licence because you want to own a device but think you shouldn't have to pay for a product (BBC) you don't wish to consume? Lose your liberty and your assets. Incredible, yet people don’t see it.

Voluntary cooperation doesn’t need to be weak. The settlers in the US weren’t wimps.

As for summerblues evolution point above, evolution doesn't reach an end point. All it does is allow whatever is most able to survive an environment to reproduce. And it take a long time. Nobody who understands evolution looks at the current organisms and says they are somekind of end point; if the environment changes it all changes. 
So it will be with human organisation; new systems of universal communication, the advent of AI* etc. all will act to change the way people organise. I suspect it could go very, very bad with exponential growth in totalitarianism if the current model is unchallenged. I hear today misogyny might be made a "hate crime" (how very Orwellian that phrase is); how long before your every utterance (and thought?) is available for State prosecutors to assess: they'd love to, you know. And all for your own good too. 

The system of the coercive State has been restrained only by it's capability to control every aspect of your life; as capability changes so will the reach. Only a system based on the opposite premise can avoid this.


* I read today the latest incarnation of game playing AI taught itself from scratch to play chess just by playing itself and now is the Worlds greatest player, developing insight and strategy that the best human players are working to comprehend. It achieved this in four (4) hours. I wonder when it's going to learn how to communicate with people, use linguistic nuances, persuade people to a point of view, develop strategic plans, develop technology, design a better version of itself.

PS Daniel; what is a "right winger"? What do you think it means?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:17 pm

I said "mostly" right wing. Conservative values. I agree that it's not particularly helpful to use right and left - but I have no desire for you to bog me down in meaningless semantics when you know what I mean.  You are also now in direct conflict with yourself.  You're arguing opposites and you know it.  You say one thing then claim you never said it or meant it.  Debate is meaningless.

Daniel

Posts : 3138
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:42 pm

What are you on about?

Right wing is a hopelessly lazy label. There is only one meaningful distinction; libertarian or authoritarian and that doesn't correspond to party lines or the outdated label derived from the French Parliament.

As far as the rest goes, it looks like, once again, you're struggling to understand.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:14 pm

bogbrush wrote:What are you on about?

Right wing is a hopelessly lazy label. There is only one meaningful distinction; libertarian or authoritarian and that doesn't correspond to party lines or the outdated label derived from the French Parliament.

As far as the rest goes, it looks like, once again, you're struggling to understand.
One could easily argue they are 2 sides of the same coin. Libertarian leads to the dictature of the $$. Nowadays corporation money dictates everything. This is exactly why a state is necessary.

Tenez

Posts : 17437
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:20 pm

Here's a bit of fun

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42268306

Thankfully we have regulatory offices of State to protect everyone! 

Myself, I'd just announce to students that this is where your money goes and maybe you'd like to spend your money with slightly cheaper freeloaders, or perhaps just organise it for yourselves for a lot less (and before anyone doubts that can be done, I know how to organise tuition with a Cambridge Maths genius who does tuition in addition to his day job a  a risk model developer for an investment bank).

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:22 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:What are you on about?

Right wing is a hopelessly lazy label. There is only one meaningful distinction; libertarian or authoritarian and that doesn't correspond to party lines or the outdated label derived from the French Parliament.

As far as the rest goes, it looks like, once again, you're struggling to understand.
One could easily argue they are 2 sides of the same coin. Libertarian leads to the dictature of the $$. Nowadays corporation money dictates everything. This is exactly why a state is necessary.
Corporatism is the antithesis of libertarianism. Corporations depend on the State for their existence and maintain their dominance because of it. Seriously, no State = no humongous corporations taking the pi$$ out of you.

Think about who creates the system of

- patents
- legal limited liability
- regulatory barriers to entry
- international standardisation

and think about who benefits from them, and who keeps telling you they’ll hurt you if you vote against more supra-national government.

Always baffles me how people take such notice of big business, as if it had the slightest loyalty except to itself.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:26 pm

There are problems with the current system, but that doesn't mean your system will necessarily work Bogbrush.
Right now you are sounding like some of my younger friends who like Communism, talking about how if only humans were enlightened and society could change in a certain way then we could live in a more idealistic society. The reason the state is needed is to protect against the worse aspects of humanity.

Still no answer to these questions Bogbrush: It's easier to make vague unprovable statements and critique of current society than it is to actually defend how a society would deal with pragmatic realities.

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:1. Don’t you realise what it means to lose the protection of the law.
Explain what would happen to a thief and a murderer. What if the two murder suspects were cult figures, and their own fanbase believe the other cult leader was guilty. Mob rule?

2. Nonsense.
Is that an argument?
Without a state military what is stopping a very wealthy person from owning a militia and using it to their own purposes? People love power.

3. Were you damaged and if so by what?
A family of an asthma sufferer who dies could say that the air pollution contributed to the death. Who would they sue?

4. No, they’d make some more. Or do you imagine someone could buy all the roads? Who would they buy them from?
It takes time to make more, and in that time the railway would make huge profit. As for roads, if all people using trains started using roads in a city, we would have intense air pollution and traffic would be at a standstill.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:45 pm

Read my long post above. It’s all there. Nothing requiring enlightenment! people will still do shit things but treating people like domestic animals, trained to believe pathetic things like you need a State to educate you so you can advance your own life is just sad. It’s pathetc really. Meanwhile the entity you look to for protection is the very one sanctioning Corporatism and super-national stitch ups. It isn’t really a great answer.

I just love that you think the State protects you from all this crap. Aren’t you watching?. Why not step back a bit and try to think at a principle level? You seem to be just keen on listing loads of scenarios and asking how they’d all be made lovely; doesn’t it occur to you why these subjects matter to you - that they already exist under a State?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:04 pm

bogbrush wrote:Read my long post above. It’s all there.
I must have somehow missed it? Where

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:11 pm

I don’t know why you ask me this stuff if you can’t try to open your mind. Honest, asking me how there’d never be pollution or bad people doing nasty things really is meaningless.

This idea that the State is a protecting entity rather than a system of rule ignores the evidence. I mean, the examples you give exist now under States anyway!!!

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:21 pm

bogbrush wrote:I don’t know why you ask me this stuff if you can’t try to open your mind. Honest, asking me how there’d never be pollution or bad people doing nasty things really is meaningless.
Well why not just answer, and then if my rebuttal to your points is flawed or doesn't make sense, you can point that out specifically.
As I said it's much easier to critique the current system compared to defending practical unintended consequences of a new system.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:42 pm

You seem to want to presume that there all sorts of problems and unless free people solve them perfectly there must be a ruler, yet you ignore that there are horrendous problems that rulers don’t solve. This is rather lop-sided.

Your pollution problem did make me smile though. What’s the recourse for the diesel particulates scandal perpetrated by...... er...... the State incentivising diesel? And the obesity catastrophe driven by State endorsed advice in favour of low fat diets? Or don’t f*ck ups count when the State does them?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:53 pm

Not just that, even the air pollution problem in London was exacerbated because there was a drive by the mayor's office to change to reduce petrol and thus increase diesel. It backfired and increased air pollution.
I am happy to make criticisms of the current status quo, it isn't perfect. But it's considerably better than the chaos that would happen under your system.
Now, are you going to answer my questions?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:27 pm

DECIMA wrote:Not just that, even the air pollution problem in London was exacerbated because there was a drive by the mayor's office to change to reduce petrol and thus increase diesel. It backfired and increased air pollution.
I am happy to make criticisms of the current status quo, it isn't perfect. But it's considerably better than the chaos that would happen under your system.
Now, are you going to answer my questions?
Have done, over and over.

Can’t you lift your head out of the disease concentration camps and consider principles of coercion vs voluntary? Or shall we just conclude that you actually just like the idea of rulers and sequestration of stuff? It does seem that, fundamentally, that’s how you like life.
And don’t forget where this will go; the State isn’t standing still, it’s creep of authority is only one way, headed towards policing of thought and opinion. There’s no status quo on offer you know.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:08 pm

bogbrush wrote:Can’t you lift your head out of the disease concentration camps and consider principles of coercion vs voluntary?
I did that very early on in the debate. I support a system where a democratically elected government can impose laws which coerce people such as taxes. This is, obviously, an impediment on freedom. Your system has no coercion from the state, so more freedom from the perspective of the state. I'm not sure why you keep addressing me like I'm thick, come on now.

bogbrush wrote:
DECIMA wrote:
Now, are you going to answer my questions?
Have done, over and over.
Does this forum have a transparent font option? You keep insisting you've answered yet I see no evidence of it from your posts; only that can explain it.

Quite simple:
a) How will you stop rich people forming militias which then gain power and curtail all freedoms
b) No state justice system, what happens if 2 cult leaders are accused of a murder with public divided
c) how would you deal with air pollution
d) how would you stop rich people cyclicly creating and abusing monopolies to extort the public
Either answer, or say you won't answer, and then we can move on to patents and limited liability.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Told you, but here goes again

- through opposition of a majority, same as now
- no different from now; if the public are divided the state justice system will find them not guilty
- same as now, through lawsuits if damage can be proven
- by open markets facilitating competition so extortion can’t survive.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:27 pm

- by open markets facilitating competition so extortion can’t survive.

If only the world was as simple as a one liner.

Daniel

Posts : 3138
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:38 pm

bogbrush wrote:
- through opposition of a majority, same as now
Currently, if a rich person tried to form a militia they would be stopped by the British army.
The problem with voluntary contributions paying for an army is who decides the decisions the army takes? The richest could contribute more and try to seize power.

bogbrush wrote:- no different from now; if the public are divided the state justice system will find them not guilty
Sorry my question wasn't clear. 2 different cult leaders are suspected for a murder. The evidence points to one of them. The cult followers will take the side of their leader irrelevant of the evidence. How would your system deal with this? Certainly not like what we have now.

bogbrush wrote:- same as now, through lawsuits if damage can be proven
Under the current system you could tax transactions that cause air pollution. How would damage by air pollution be limited? How can damage be proven?

bogbrush wrote:
- by open markets facilitating competition so extortion can’t survive.
Refer back to my earlier example. If someone buys the railways, planes, and airports for domestic UK travel, they'll be in a position to put up prices in the short term. Everyone moving to transport by road wouldn't be feasible. Then after the new railways are built, a new rich person could buy the lot again. There could just be cyclical monopolies.


Last edited by DECIMA on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 pm

Daniel wrote:
- by open markets facilitating competition so extortion can’t survive.

If only the world was as simple as a one liner.
Sorry, but it’s true. Extortion requires restriction of competition, which is achieved through

- intellectual property monopolies
- regulatory barriers
- monopoly purchase of natural resources

All these require a State. Without a State they simply cannot exist and anyone making supernormal profit attracts competition.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:49 pm

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
- through opposition of a majority, same as now
Currently, if a rich person tried to form a militia they would be stopped by the British army.
The problem with voluntary contributions paying for an army is who decides the decisions the army takes? The richest could contribute more and try to seize power.

bogbrush wrote:- no different from now; if the public are divided the state justice system will find them not guilty
Sorry my question wasn't clear. 2 different cult leaders are suspected for a murder. The evidence points to one of them. How would your system deal with this? Certainly not like what we have now.

bogbrush wrote:- same as now, through lawsuits if damage can be proven
Under the current system you could tax transactions that cause air pollution. How would damage by air pollution be proved exactly?

bogbrush wrote:
- by open markets facilitating competition so extortion can’t survive.
Refer back to my earlier example. If someone buys the railways, planes, and airports for domestic UK travel, they'll be in a position to put up prices in the short term. Everyone moving to transport by road wouldn't be feasible. Then after the new railways are built, a new rich person could buy the lot again. There could just be cyclical monopolies.
1. They could try but if most people oppose them they fail.

2. Oh I see you’re deciding that you “know” they’re guilty even though a jury would not agree. Exactly what system was it you were endorsing?

3. Right, so you approve of damaging behaviour so long as it’s taxed. How curious. And if damage cannot be proven then there’s no guilt, or are we back to “Amrit knows best” again?

4. This is a frankly stupid hypothetical. Exactly how does anyone buy all the land and airports and ports and roads and along the way never faces new competition or the problem of people changing their consumption of travel? You might as well ask what happens if a guy buys all the air and charges you for breathing it.
However, if a guy builds all the railways and charges a price then good luck to him, for as long as it lasts. 
Do you know there is actually one monopoly we have now which is enforced by the State and on which a rent is charged for every item, and the State forces you to use it? It’s called money. Other monopolies always depend on State enforced barriers to entry.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:01 am

bogbrush wrote:1. They could try but if most people oppose them they fail.
No because the wealthiest 10% could get together and have more resources to fund huge armies and seize power. Armies funded by voluntary contributions are obviously vulnerable to this. No one would try that in the UK currently.

bogbrush wrote:2. Oh I see you’re deciding that you “know” they’re guilty even though a jury would not agree. Exactly what system was it you were endorsing?
No that's not what I meant.
Let's say someone is found guilty by a jury but he had a cult following. What would happen to him?

bogbrush wrote:3. Right, so you approve of damaging behaviour so long as it’s taxed. How curious. And if damage cannot be proven then there’s no guilt, or are we back to “Amrit knows best” again?
If we taxed transactions where the air was polluted, or water was polluted, there would be less of those transactions.
And it's not necessary that if damage can't be proven there's no guilt. I'll give the same example as before, air pollution in a city causes a big percentage increase in number of people dying of asthma. But it's impossible to prove a particular transaction which caused air pollution was the tipping point to someone dying of asthma.

bogbrush wrote:4.
However, if a guy builds all the railways and charges a price then good luck to him, for as long as it lasts.
Well the guy who builds the railways could sell it to someone else. You didn't address the key issue which is your system has no way of stopping rich people abusing monopolies.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:16 am

1. Sorry, but an army can not overcome a motivated and independent population. It can dominate a population of sheep reliant on the State of course. Tell you what though, at least a State army can’t be commanded into a war by the State leader without the consent of the people, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and subsequent catastrophe can it? 

Is this where you say “oh well it’s not perfect”.

2. But it’s what you said. How do you get him found guilty if the jury was divided? And if it’s not then his cult must be piss weak and the judgement of the law is sound.

3. So you’re definitely happy for harmful stuff to be done so long as it’s taxed, and people have no recourse. That’s mental. And as for proving harm, well don’t you think harm should be proven before recourse? As for air pollution, well imagine it’s caused by cars - sue the car maker. That was easy wasn’t it?

4. Sure he sells it. Well done, for a big profit I bet. Then the other guy fucks up his pricing and the first guy decides he can win all over again and sets up.

Oh, and before the first guy there were no railways in this hypothetical World were there? So everyone owed their rail travel to the entrepreneur so they obviously chose to use it over previous options which they might return to. 
And no comment on the fiat currency monopoly, or the regulatory support of corporate oligopolies?


I’d this it? Stupid hypotheticals and not a sliver of principles of coercion?

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:41 am

bogbrush wrote:1. Sorry, but an army can not overcome a motivated and independent population.
Yes it can. Numbers don't win wars these days, it's resources. Either way your society is at huge risk of militia taking over at some point.

bogbrush wrote:2. But it’s what you said. How do you get him found guilty if the jury was divided? And if it’s not then his cult must be piss weak and the judgement of the law is sound.
The jury finds him guilty but his fanbase still think he's innocent.

bogbrush wrote:3. So you’re definitely happy for harmful stuff to be done so long as it’s taxed, and people have no recourse. That’s mental. And as for proving harm, well don’t you think harm should be proven before recourse? As for air pollution, well imagine it’s caused by cars - sue the car maker. That was easy wasn’t it?
No but I believe regulation and taxes can help limit air pollution.
Who exactly would sue the car maker? It's impossible for a family of a deceased person to prove that it's air pollution which caused asthma. We know air pollution overall increases the percentage of deaths due to asthma substantially, but we can't say for sure that an individual person would not have had asthma if not for air pollution.

bogbrush wrote:4. Sure he sells it. Well done, for a big profit I bet. Then the other guy fucks up his pricing and the first guy decides he can win all over again and sets up.
Oh, and before the first guy there were no railways in this hypothetical World were there? So everyone owed their rail travel to the entrepreneur so they obviously chose to use it over previous options which they might return to. 
Yeah some people would go back to using roads. Some, including those who travel a long distance from work, would perhaps choose to still pay the extortionate free for the train. As for the guy who sets up new railways, after that's completed, his railways can be bought off again so the rich person can continue enjoying a monopoly.
This point is getting a bit too specific, but my general point is that sometimes monopolies can be created and exploited, and laws can help break up monopolies.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:34 am

1. You’re wrong, but that’s as far as that aspect will go.

2. Like any system whatsoever, so that’s run it’s course too. Unless your magical State can make differences of opinion illegal (oh hang on.....).

3. It’s called medical assessment and is exactly what gets done every day now. You never heard of anyone sueing cigarette manufacturers? I must say, what a dismal philosophy you have to think just taxing harm is a good idea.

4. Its got too specific because it’s obviously nonsense. And once again you simply don’t grasp how State legislation maintains the strength of corporate oligopoly. Take ONE aspect - limited liability. You know how that encourages corporate irresponsibility? You th8nk the whole bank crap could happen if there was unlimited liability? The whole concept of a corporate legal entity is a fantasy created by the State.

You steer clear of these points every time of course.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:39 am

bogbrush wrote:1. You’re wrong, but that’s as far as that aspect will go.
Not much of a reasoned point but alright, we'll have to agree to disagree. An army reliant on voluntary contributions will eventually end up with power in the hands of the rich who can contribute more.

bogbrush wrote:2. Like any system whatsoever, so that’s run it’s course too.
Looks like you completely missed my point on this one. Your system has no rule of law from a state authority. So a cult leader even if found guilty could be protected by his followers, mob rule.

bogbrush wrote:3. It’s called medical assessment and is exactly what gets done every day now. You never heard of anyone sueing cigarette manufacturers? I must say, what a dismal philosophy you have to think just taxing harm is a good idea.
You can't tell for sure if someone with asthma has got the condition due to air pollution. Someone could have asthma in the family but air pollution may still be the trigger factor for them getting it, or not. It's far more complex than smoking's link to lung cancer.

bogbrush wrote:4. Its got too specific because it’s obviously nonsense.
That's a very immature rebuttal. If it's so obviously untrue then why can't you argue against it? Your only point so far is that if someone monopolises the railways and the planes, people could go back to using roads while a new unnecessary railway line is being built. That is unfeasible as the roads wouldn't cope with extra pressure and not practical for long distance travellers.
We need state protection against monopolies, or some people will take advantage and exploit consumers.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:14 am

1. Yeah, you have the last word but.....

2. You're hugely mistaken here, Law does not emanate from the State, that’s legislation. Law emanates from respected judgement, which draws from precedent and equity. It existed before we even had a Parliament and requires no State. 

Law like this comes from agreed principles between people, as it should, and not from a ruler. Those who disavow it are outlaw, and that’s a serious place to be amongst a responsible, independent, law-abiding population.

3. Well done, you’re making just the kind of arguments that would be made in a lawsuit, and that’s exactly what would need to happen. That’s how disputes are resolved, how accountability is ascertained. That’s good isn’t it? I mean, if there's no harm to the emission then there shouldn't be any punishment should there? If the harm is to the cleanliness of the place then the responsible party can get the cleaning bill.

4. Oh dear. Still not getting it how the State creates and promotes big fat corporatism. You just keep on with your fictional transport magnate (who never got to exist even when all the railways were privately owned, which underlines what a stupid hypothetical it is) while I point you to real facts about State systems for the maintenance of oligopoly...... and you seem incapable of processing the information.

Still steering way clear of these points every post.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:33 am

bogbrush wrote:As for summerblues evolution point above, evolution doesn't reach an end point. All it does is allow whatever is most able to survive an environment to reproduce. And it take a long time.
Sure, I am not implying otherwise.  The point is that we have never had a Stateless society and, in many respects, the state is becoming more entrenched, not less so.  You yourself seem to be taking a similar view:

bogbrush wrote:What we have now did not spontaneously arise, it is “Monarchy-lite”, a transfer of absolute power from someone who took it by violence to another body which imposes on the population no less (more in fact because it has the extra manpower).

[...]

So it will be with human organisation; new systems of universal communication, the advent of AI* etc. all will act to change the way people organise. I suspect it could go very, very bad with exponential growth in totalitarianism if the current model is unchallenged.

You yourself seem to agree that the state is, if anything, becoming more omnipresent.  I largely share that view.  I had said in an earlier post that my suspicion is that we will ultimately converge to some version of nazism or communism, and that those two systems were only defeated because they came "ahead of their time".

So, I think we agree in many respects.  When I brought up the evolution, my point was different.  My question to you would be:  why would you - with your ostensibly materialistic views - not just conclude that evolution may well lead to a permanent totalitarian government and, if so, it just means that the totalitarian government is thus the best system there is, and leave it at that?  Why rage against it?

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:01 am

I point to a fork in the road. Totalitarianism is inherently unstable because

- it destroys wealth leading to competitive disadvantage and failure against a rival
- it relies on ever-escalating oppression leading eventually to revolution.

I suspect if the State model is not challenged we will waste another hundred years or so going down the wrong road before inevitable crisis and another turmoil.

The key to all us technology. AI and genetic manipulation are going to fundamentally change the species with outcomes that could range anywhere!

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:26 pm

bogbrush wrote:Those who disavow it are outlaw, and that’s a serious place to be amongst a responsible, independent, law-abiding population.
Indeed, but if there's no authority enforcing the law then the deterrent will not be the same. If it's just upto the people, things could go badly wrong. As I said a cult leader even if found guilty by a trial could hide within his followers, trade with them, and avoid punishment for a crime. If people think it's more likely they escape punishment for a crime, the rates go up. 

bogbrush wrote:
3. Well done, you’re making just the kind of arguments that would be made in a lawsuit, and that’s exactly what would need to happen. That’s how disputes are resolved, how accountability is ascertained. That’s good isn’t it? I mean, if there's no harm to the emission then there shouldn't be any punishment should there? If the harm is to the cleanliness of the place then the responsible party can get the cleaning bill.
You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. We know that air pollution increases deaths due to asthma by x%, but we don't know in individual cases if a specific asthma death was caused by air pollution. You are just being as stubborn as a ideological left winger, refusing to concede any ground even when it's obvious. 

bogbrush wrote:
You just keep on with your fictional transport magnate (who never got to exist even when all the railways were privately owned, which underlines what a stupid hypothetical it is)
I'm not against privately owned railways, I'm just for the government being able to use the law to stop monopolies. 
If there's nothing stopping rich people from getting monopolies and extorting the consumer as I described in this example, then why would they not do so? You don't have unlimited space to keep building new railways lines connecting the same areas in London. 
People, if they have a chance to abuse their position to get more power and money, will try and take the chance. Your view pf humanity is too idealistic and unrealistic. Same way that you don't realise that defending a country by funding an army with 'voluntary contributions' would eventually lead to the wealthiest having a bigger influence over the army, and abusing that power.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 15 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum