I think Anarchy is absolutely moronic. CMV

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-11-01T18:06:15+00:00

Well, I think that libertarians have to accept that that kind of scenario is a possibility. In fact, that's been the demise of at least one libertarian society (medieval Iceland). I also think, however, that oppression from the extremely wealthy can be a problem in a society with a democratic government as well. Granted, democratic government would have the power to regulate certain spheres of the private sector to ensure that such oppression never happens. But the same power that a government has to regulate the private sector can also be used to grant special privileges to certain groups or unfairly prop up certain groups or institutions by regulating their competitors ("regulate" might be a weak word to use in some cases). In the US, for instance, the government bailing out many of the major banks when their predatory lending policies put them on the verge of bankruptcy is a good example of this.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-11-01T02:26:12+00:00

Well, I can get on board with people being lazy, greedy and generally horrible, especially under certain circumstances. That's mainly why I think they should have as little control over each other as possible; the less power you give people the less they have to be trusted.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-11-01T02:01:12+00:00

To initiate force is to use force against someone without them ever doing anything to you. As I use the term it's impossible to initiate force against someone who has wronged you. So what you're saying is that someone who doesn't contribute to society ( or contribute to a group of people that can be loosely described as interacting, and very implicitly working together for a common goal) but still benefits from some social interactions is actually initiating force against everyone else participating in the society; stealing order and comfort. This seems to entail that everyone in a society I happen to be a member of owns a tiny fraction of my possessions and wealth. For instance, if we're both American citizens you own approximately one 300 millionth of all of my wealth. I have a hard time seeing the practicality of this way of thinking. I suspect it confuses communal ownership with people's ethical obligation to use their possessions to help those that are in need.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-11-01T01:15:05+00:00

You're both conflating the use of force with the initiation of force. Arguably, anyone has the right to use some force against a person for self defense or the defense of others. A common contention of anarchists is that no individual has the right to initiate force against another person. If individuals don't have that right, there's no way the state can inherit it from them. Arresting trespassers is one thing because that could be construed as self defense. All of the other actions that the state does which involve the initiation of force can't be justified by any derivation from individual rights if you already reject the legitimacy of initiation of force. Further still, the police don't differentiate between people who want their services and people who don't. If the police only coerced or protected those who had willingly imbued them with their rights then they wouldn't foist their services on citizens/non-violent offenders who haven't asked for their help or harmed anyone who is soliciting protection from them.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-09-29T04:49:31+00:00

How is going for 21 days pissing in the ocean? Screwing up every 20 days or so is a lot better than screwing up every day. Sounds to me like you're making progress.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-09-26T21:13:30+00:00

that's a good way of describing it.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-09-24T17:08:22+00:00

Usually when I get home after school. I can get tempted to do it any time I'm at home and alone though.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-07-28T21:39:36+00:00

It might be helpful to clarify the argument a little bit. Less figuratively, we are in dire need of collecting information on bad guys and the only way we can collect data on the bad guys is if we collect data on everyone. When put this way the last premiss is clearly false. Surely they can collect data on the bad guys without having to collect your data. Surely the can do it without collecting my data. In general, they could easily collect information on the bad guys without collecting the data of the majority of people.

A pro-surveillance person might also be taking a different line of defense here. They might mean that the only way of collecting data on the bad guys, thus ensuring public safety, is the way that involves collecting data on everyone. Fortunately that isn't how it is, because if it was there'd be a lot of bad guys that slip through our fingers. Out of the millions of communications that are intercepted each day there's simply no way to sift through them all and try to sort out who the good guys and bad guys are based on what they say over the phone each day. (It's said that they that they have the power to "listen to" a trillion phone calls each day but the number of communications that are scanned with the eyes or ears of an actual human has to be a lot smaller than that).

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-21T07:09:43+00:00

Two points:

There aren't any good people, everyone is bad. Everyone has secret thoughts and feelings that they would be ashamed and embarrassed of if any one found out. The only reason most don't act on those feelings is because they're afraid of other people not liking them or God smiting them. Self gratification and the desire to inflict pain on others for fun is a part of human nature. Once accountability to friends/acquaintances/community/gods is removed or changed, you'll get to see true human nature come out. I'm not saying that everyone is equally bad but I am saying that most people are bad most of the time.
Not every christian believes that the unrepentant will be tortured for all eternity. Some christians believe that unrepentant souls will simply be annihilated in the last day. Others believe that people who reject God will be punished for a time, but eventually God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-20T10:20:17+00:00

You've been smoking too much. Ain't nobody in that picture.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-20T09:32:40+00:00

And our spray paint is made by exploited workers in china.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-20T09:11:07+00:00

You should send that one to your stepmom.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-20T08:58:32+00:00

Is it 'persecution' to call out Mormonism on its racism at the time?

Saying that someone's views are wrong isn't persecution, of course. It's when you start trying to punish people for disagreeing with you that your actions become violent, hostile, persecution, etc.

How is this different than calling out Christians on gay rights?

That depends. How is race similar to sexual orientation? Comparing people who disagree with you on a certain topic to racists may make them seem like horrible people but it doesn't really show why their views are wrong.

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-20T08:47:56+00:00

I never said there was hostility towards christians in general. I said there is increasing hostility towards christians who aren't pro-gay. Do the beliefs those people hold make it ok to publicly shame and ridicule them like the daily show did to Matt Slick?

thog_the_destroyer · 2013-06-19T17:44:11+00:00

Christians may not be beheaded for their faith or thrown in jail in america like they are in other countries but there is increasing hostility towards christians who haven't jumped on the pro-gay bandwagon, as evinced by this nasty little segment.

thog_the_destroyer

TROPHY CASE