Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

World's Shortest Political Quiz

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:18:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should a service or product be provided at the barrel of a gun? Yes or no.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:32:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Saying your opponents have a personality disorder is extremely bad form. With this tactic, you convince no body, and only serve to separate opposing ideologies ever more.

That said, the vast majority of people are for the existence of some type of government. Are you implying that the vast majority of people have a personality disorder? If so, then it no longer becomes a personality disorder. It is, by definition, normal. It becomes average.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:30:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If I'm providing a product to party B, and party C tries to stop me but B consents, and it's my product, yes, a barrel of the gun should be introduced into the provision equation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:17:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:57:25 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:29:43 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
No.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "no"?

He means that no product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:20:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:30:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I'm providing a product to party B, and party C tries to stop me but B consents, and it's my product, yes, a barrel of the gun should be introduced into the provision equation.

You psychopathic narcisiist!
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:41:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:30:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I'm providing a product to party B, and party C tries to stop me but B consents, and it's my product, yes, a barrel of the gun should be introduced into the provision equation.

Then the product was provided at the barrel of a gun. It was provided voluntarily.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:45:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 8:41:49 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:30:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I'm providing a product to party B, and party C tries to stop me but B consents, and it's my product, yes, a barrel of the gun should be introduced into the provision equation.

Then the product was provided at the barrel of a gun.
Correct. the barrel of the gun was provided with a barrel of a gun pointed at party C.

It was provided voluntarily.
Relative to those whose rights are involved in the matter anyway. Those whose rights are not involved do not volunteer and yet will be forced to accept the fact of the transaction if they do not accept it in the first place.

Since I get the funny feeling your source is anarchist (though I don't like gleaning information from video) this renders the test insufficient for its probable purpose of establishing anarchy-- at best it establishes taxlessness, a separate consideration.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:45:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
er, product was provided with a barrel of a gun pointed at party C.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 9:04:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 8:45:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/5/2009 8:41:49 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:30:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I'm providing a product to party B, and party C tries to stop me but B consents, and it's my product, yes, a barrel of the gun should be introduced into the provision equation.

Then the product was provided at the barrel of a gun.
Correct. the barrel of the gun was provided with a barrel of a gun pointed at party C.

Ah, I forgot the not, but you messed up as well.

It was provided voluntarily.
Relative to those whose rights are involved in the matter anyway. Those whose rights are not involved do not volunteer and yet will be forced to accept the fact of the transaction if they do not accept it in the first place.

Correct. But that is not what was meant by the question and you know it. :P

Since I get the funny feeling your source is anarchist (though I don't like gleaning information from video) this renders the test insufficient for its probable purpose of establishing anarchy-- at best it establishes taxlessness, a separate consideration.

Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion

That seems to be all that the test is about.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:48:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh this is absolutely moronic. The question sets up a false premise. No government provides a service at a barrel of a gun because it's a service. People decide which leader they would like, and any increases in social benefits and the corresponding costs are to be expected. If you don't want to pay the taxes; leave the country.

Besides, a government generally provides services that appeal to the entire society, therefore paying the taxes is, in some way, saving you money by not having to pay for the service yourself and at the same time helping those who cannot pay for it

This sort of underhanded attack is really sad. Libertarians have a very good platform to debate from and it really doesn't need this sort of hyperbole.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 12:48:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

It was provided voluntarily.
Relative to those whose rights are involved in the matter anyway. Those whose rights are not involved do not volunteer and yet will be forced to accept the fact of the transaction if they do not accept it in the first place.

Correct. But that is not what was meant by the question and you know it. :P
Irrelevant, since something that was meant by the question is rebutted by that.


Since I get the funny feeling your source is anarchist (though I don't like gleaning information from video) this renders the test insufficient for its probable purpose of establishing anarchy-- at best it establishes taxlessness, a separate consideration.

Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion
Nonsense. Anarchism opposes a state. Traditionally, it also opposes anything that can be construed as hierarchy of just about any form, though this is replaced with intial coercion in anarcho capitalism, but the defining feature is not the ban on initial coercion (which occurs in consistent forms of minarchy as well), rather, it is the ban on an entity holding exclusive jurisdiction on any form of retaliatory coercion (the state). It may believe such exclusivity to be an initiation of force, yet minarchy, at least the strictly libertarian kind, holds instead that jurisdiction is a form of scarce property (roughly analogous to owning the right to broadcast a certain radio spectrum over a certain land area rather than owning everything about that land area), and thus not an initiation of force. Thus it is a philosophy that opposes initiation of force (whether it is correct in its interpretation of what constitutes such is open to debate) without being anarchist.

Moving on to the other end of me on matters of state:

People decide which leader they would like
No. The majority of people decide. The minority is ****ed. In any orifice the majority happen to desire.

If you don't want to pay the taxes; leave the country.
If you don't want me to burglarize you, leave your house. To a place that doesn't exist btw, because everywhere on earth you shall be burgarized.

Besides, a government generally provides services that appeal to the entire society,
Not only does it not generally do that, it does not EVER EVER do that. There is nothing on earth that appeals to every constituent of the generalization "Society." Nothing. Whatsoever. "Entire society" is an illegitimate construct, society is not a singular, not a whole, it is a grouping of distinct, diverse parts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 1:08:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 12:48:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It was provided voluntarily.
Relative to those whose rights are involved in the matter anyway. Those whose rights are not involved do not volunteer and yet will be forced to accept the fact of the transaction if they do not accept it in the first place.

Correct. But that is not what was meant by the question and you know it. :P
Irrelevant, since something that was meant by the question is rebutted by that.

Yes, it is true that others are forced to bear the consequences of the transaction but they had no right to stop it. Though your point is taken.


Since I get the funny feeling your source is anarchist (though I don't like gleaning information from video) this renders the test insufficient for its probable purpose of establishing anarchy-- at best it establishes taxlessness, a separate consideration.

Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion
Nonsense. Anarchism opposes a state. Traditionally, it also opposes anything that can be construed as hierarchy of just about any form, though this is replaced with intial coercion in anarcho capitalism, but the defining feature is not the ban on initial coercion (which occurs in consistent forms of minarchy as well), rather, it is the ban on an entity holding exclusive jurisdiction on any form of retaliatory coercion (the state). It may believe such exclusivity to be an initiation of force, yet minarchy, at least the strictly libertarian kind, holds instead that jurisdiction is a form of scarce property (roughly analogous to owning the right to broadcast a certain radio spectrum over a certain land area rather than owning everything about that land area), and thus not an initiation of force. Thus it is a philosophy that opposes initiation of force (whether it is correct in its interpretation of what constitutes such is open to debate) without being anarchist.

The definition comes from the wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements.

Way to take something out of context, in any case, it's kind of an ad authoritatem here, especially since philosophies that meet the criteria (Objectivism for example) EXPLICITLY disavow anarchism.

Then again, they sometimes like to define the Objectivist state out of being a state if that little sidebar is any guide. Oh well. That doesn't mean there is any good reason for their use of the terms that way :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 5:11:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 4:56:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements.

Way to take something out of context, in any case, it's kind of an ad authoritatem here, especially since philosophies that meet the criteria (Objectivism for example) EXPLICITLY disavow anarchism.

If you oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, so far as I am concerned, you are an anarchist.

Then again, they sometimes like to define the Objectivist state out of being a state if that little sidebar is any guide. Oh well. That doesn't mean there is any good reason for their use of the terms that way :).

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion

P
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 8:20:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 5:11:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/5/2009 4:56:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements.

Way to take something out of context, in any case, it's kind of an ad authoritatem here, especially since philosophies that meet the criteria (Objectivism for example) EXPLICITLY disavow anarchism.

If you oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, so far as I am concerned, you are an anarchist.
Which is a way of sidestepping the entire debate among libertarians about whether the monopoly on retaliatory force is necessary.


Then again, they sometimes like to define the Objectivist state out of being a state if that little sidebar is any guide. Oh well. That doesn't mean there is any good reason for their use of the terms that way :).

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion
Yes. That's the "defining out of being a state."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 7:08:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 8:20:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is a way of sidestepping the entire debate among libertarians about whether the monopoly on retaliatory force is necessary.

Necessary is an odd word. Nevertheless, what would you do if a competitor set up a rival "government"? Would you initiate coercion against them?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 9:45:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
question what is service being defined as?

But If it is what I think it to be my answer would be yes. But that is probably the authortarian speaking out in me
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 10:27:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 7:08:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/5/2009 8:20:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is a way of sidestepping the entire debate among libertarians about whether the monopoly on retaliatory force is necessary.

Necessary is an odd word. Nevertheless, what would you do if a competitor set up a rival "government"? Would you initiate coercion against them?

I'm assuming in your question I'm already operating a sufficiently limited government that is in my control. In which case-- No, I wouldn't have to, I would retaliate with force against their infringement upon my jurisdictional property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 10:36:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 10:27:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I'm assuming in your question I'm already operating a sufficiently limited government that is in my control. In which case-- No, I wouldn't have to, I would retaliate with force against their infringement upon my jurisdictional property.

What property are they infringing against?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran