So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 10 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, AFA a government system not working...
We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?
Right.
So who does this? The government? A GSA analogue? Citizens' groups with no actual power to require change? The Effectiveness Fairy?
Perhaps you should provide a bit more detail about how this would work and how we would get there from here.
Also governments and governmental organizations, being groups of people with their own ideas of what's effective, not mechanical devices, are a bit harder to both analyze and correct, especially if their definition of "working" differs from yours. The Meals-on-wheels Czar and his directors are sure that they are more effective if they provide the same meal to everyone in the country on the same day.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.
Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.
Quote:
Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.
No. It's an example, not all inclusive. Sort'a like I haven't brought up how money might work in such a system.
Quote:
But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent.
Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.
Quote:
It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!
So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.
Quote:
I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.
I noted above the (to me) similarity between the Golden Rule and the moral rules that can be derived from the ZAP. Actually, property rights seems to fit right in with the GR as well. If I have property and you have property and we want to exchange some of it, I want you to be treated as fairly as I would like to be treated.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
HA!
You'd have to actually post some evidence for that, son.
I know, you think repeating it over and over makes it so. That's why you're so hilarious!
Suck on it.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57863
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. A twelve year old...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I've been staying out of your conversation with Signy b/c she's far more patient than I. But I have to say, when you stop using normal meanings for words, to claim we should just all accept what you MEANT - and, uh, not what you SAID - it seems to me you don't even know what you mean. Not really. If you did, you could find the words and explain to the rest of us what you mean.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Geezer, I can only understand what you're SAYING, I can't psychically absorb your feelings and intentions. We use words because they have meanings by which we communicate our thoughts and feelings. It matters which words you use and which words I use.
Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.
On this problem, you're like other right-wingers..using words like "freedom", "human", "life", and "stuff" which have been inadequately defined by the people using them.
Quote:I use it as the most extreme example of taking someone's "stuff", and a test for how well your system would work in preventing it. If I can think of a simple way to kill someone without violating any of your "rules" then your system doesn't work very well (no matter how well-intentioned).
Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.
Quote:
So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.
Oh, but now there are OTHER rights? BESIDES the right to own property and enter into contracts? Rights which, in fact, supersede those propertarian rights which you've described more than once? Well, why don't you explain what THOSE rights are, then?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Yes. A twelve year old...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.
He started it, I ended it.
Shows why it's not worth responding to some folks.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny. This topic again?
It was quite clear a few of these libertarian-themed threads ago that geezer's ideal "government" system is nothing of the sort - it's not a system of social order. It's a lobotomy of the human race. If only that could happen, that everyone could be programmed to think exactly like him with the same principles expressed in exactly the same way, then the system he proposes would work fine. Duh! ANY system would work, because there would be no conflict.
Hello real world! You can argue the ZAP and the golden rule all you want, but humans are real and flawed and even the principled ones do bad stuff. Very few "agressors" do it for the hell of it: they do it because they think they have reason. And those like Geez and Rap who are incapable of self reflection probably do it more than most folks. Kinda like how they cheer on the failing of some poor schmoe's health care if it means they can stick to their hated Obama.
Whatever. One of the major points of societal structure is to resolve conflict in a fair way. There will ALWAYS be conflict. If you chase down geezer and get him to start proposing ways of actually addressing the inevitable conflict, as I did a few of these threads ago, he ends up describing the system we have now. Laws, law-makers, and juries.
Well, he'll get there eventually, with prodding to get him past that: "But in my world everyone just wants peace so there is no conflict!" fantasy.
I think that what Geezer really doesn't like is NOT really the govt, it's that people think differently than he does and they won't just shut up and do things his way. That is what he would "fix." Reprogram every brain on the planet, then he can sit back being happy that his "political" ideas work, not giving a damn that he had to squash all individuality to bring his personal utopia into being.
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation about this???? Or will this be just another fruitless attempt??
Greatest govt input = greater govt control, which means less individual freedom.
Sig, I'm curious. When was the last time you had a fruit*ful* attempt with Geezer, Rap, or Jongs? Just curious. Has it ever happened for you?
I recall Jongs becoming reasonable for a brief spell after the 2008 election, but I think that was just our resident headcase being on her meds and deciding to make on of her socks walk the other side for awhile. The attempt long since fell apart and Jongs reverted to that other voice I recognize easily.
But I am seriously asking you, and I'd love to see links: have you ever had a reasonable back-and-forth conversation about a topic other than Firefly or puppies with any of these three posters?
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME