Debates
13 Jan 10
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76But your edit of AThousandYoung's post misrepresents the exchange.
You fired the first salvo with "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but..."
What he actually said was: "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but...either/or fallacy".
Very different.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHaha, it went over your head, it was a little more subtle then just calling you a moron, and even if it were as blunt as that it would only be a taste of your own medicine.
This is a long lived pattern with wajoma. Anyway, I targetted my aggression at his argument, showing why it was flawed. That's not quite the same as simply calling someone a moron.
Read my post and you might see my point of view. Read wajoma's and you might find him entertaining, but not convincing.
I'm not so upset that he "retaliated" as ho ...[text shortened]... influenced my decision a bit. I mean...is that all that Libertarians can offer? Insults?
I don't believe you ever were Libertarian, but that is neither here nor there, that you claim to have changed your position because of me really just exposes you as incredibly shallow. Yep there are Libertarians that I don't like and yep I don't always like their style, (if you think I'm abrasive you're being overly sensitive) but that has never changed what it is and what it is based on, i.e. the non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on.
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaLack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit. Basically the fact that your arguments were the best Libertarians could come up with was more like it.
Haha, it went over your head, it was a little more subtle then just calling you a moron, and even if it were as blunt as that it would only be a taste of your own medicine.
I don't believe you ever were Libertarian, but that is neither here nor there, that you claim to have changed your position because of me really just exposes you as incredibly shallow. the non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on.
non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on
What are you talking about? If you really don't believe in the initiation of force under any circumstances then what's to prevent people from taking "your" stuff?
What you don't believe in is the initiation of force to take things from you. You're ok with initiating force to keep "your" things from others.
Whether or not something is rightfully "yours" however seems to depend on whether or not you can hide your trail effectively. That's what you've hinted at in another thread...if they can't prove you took it, then too bad for them was the gist of your argument.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf I have rightfully acquired property and you respect that right then everyones' is happy. If you do not respect that right then it is you that will be initiating the force or threat of force.
Lack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit.
non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on
What are you talking about? If you really don't believe in the initiation of force under any circumstances then what's to prevent people from taking "your" st ...[text shortened]... ke things from you. You're ok with initiating force to keep "your" things from others.
It's all good until you initiate. You see why that word, initiate, is so important. If you do choose to initiate force towards me and mine then I am justified in retaliating. You see the difference? I would not be the initiator.
If you have trouble with this then my doubts as to your previous claims of being libertarian are proven.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAhhh, the overused edit function.
Lack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit. Basically the fact that your arguments were the best Libertarians could come up with was more like it.
non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on
What are you talking about? If you really don't believ ...[text shortened]... they can't prove you took it, then too bad for them was the gist of your argument.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaYes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.
Ahhh, the overused edit function.
This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:
Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.
In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPlease please please, try to find some reputable definition of libertarianism that says it is ok to steal and launder money.
Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.
This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:
Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.
In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBy 'good luck' I mean good luck, it was not sarcasm.
Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.
This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:
Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.
In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaYOU said that if they can't prove it was stolen then it's rightfully acquired.
Please please please, try to find some reputable definition of libertarianism that says it is ok to steal and launder money.
"Money Laundering" means hiding the fact that it was stolen so that nobody can prove it.
So if you steal money, and launder it, then nobody can prove you stole it, and therefore it's rightfully acquired in wajomaworld.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNow read this:
YOU said that if they can't prove it was stolen then it's rightfully acquired.
"Money Laundering" means hiding the fact that it was stolen so that nobody can prove it.
So if you steal money, and launder it, then nobody can prove you stole it, and therefore it's rightfully acquired in wajomaworld.
It is not ok to steal money, stealing money is an initiation of force.
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungindeed.
Great! How should we address the fact that Lord Whatsisface acquired his fortune from slavery?
a great deal of the wealth that now exists in the US and other "Western" nations can be traced back to the sweat from many a slave or serf.
this is property that was essentially stolen from these people - by use of some of the worst force imaginable.
so the Libertarian position should be advocating a proportionate return of property to the descendants of the people who were forced to toil so hard to produce it.
14 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI share your outrage that these institutions accepted money from the federal government, but now want complete automony from them. It just doesn't work like that. Its like doing business with the mob. Once you are in, you are in. There is no backing away. One thing about it though, tax payers will get their money back from the banks and then some, however, the money that tax payers have thrown and are throwing towards Fannie and Freddie wil never be seen again. In effect, they are money pits. Speaking of Fannie and Freddie, how about its CEO Franklin Raines making about $90 million off their debacle? Are you equally as outraged? Is Obama? My guess is that since Freddie and Fannie are part of the etitlement culture no attention will be payed to them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34840056/ns/business-us_business
Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the outrage directed at the payment of bonuses seems misplaced. The firms made huge profits last year; why shouldn't the employees who contributed to those profits be compensated accordingly? Do people understand that if they are not it's not like th in about employees who contributed to a firm's profits getting a large share of the same?