Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Thieves an Warriors should be legal

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:43:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
... professions.

Warriors could replace policemen and military servicemen. A warrior's performance is based on honor, something our policemen and military have lost. Honor is really the only factor in whether or not these institutions are successful, is it not? If so, then why not work on increasing the honor these institutions possess, instead of just putting "more cops on the street" and increasing "military spending?" This is what the local policemen have been doing recently in my neighborhood to make it a safer place: http://www.facebook.com... (its on FB so you have to read the column to the left). If you look at Dudley's picture, it's hard to imagine they needed to put four rounds into the dog as a matter of public safety. Imagine your dog ran away...

I've run into this group myself personally, who shot me with a tazer when I wouldn't sit on a curb for them after I "trespassed" on a train running through my neighborhood. After congratulating me for not pissing myself, they escorted me to jail for the night. You would think after getting sucker-shot with a powerful electric gadget that this would be the foremost memory of the night... but it wasn't. What happened next certainly was. What happened next cannot be told, Neo. You must experience it for yourself.

I've put the Stanford Prison Study on here, and it was scoffed off (well, what isn't :). I'm trying to relay a point with this: You cannot know what it is to be a policemen if you haven't been one (I haven't), but you similarly cannot know what it is like from the other side. Suffice to say, you don't get feelings of "I'm with the authorities who are bound by laws and a justice system..." what I felt would be identical to what you would feel if you were in Mexico, suddenly ambushed by a ruthless drug cartel, and hauled off with your hands cuffed and head in a tied potato bag. I was physically pristine; like the officers said I had handled being brought down with the tazer like a champion and honestly it wasn't even painful in the least.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are completely ignorant to the psychological effects of police and prisons on the prisoners themselves. They have never experienced these institutions directly and they don't even know there is anything they are in the dark about. Justice is gravely miscalculated by the average individual and they only accept the officer and the guard because they have never known it any other way. However it is much deeper than this. For the select few who ever in their lives even get around to questioning whether or not cops are necessary, there is little chance they have read any studies on the subject, have poured over data, or have experienced directly just how unbelievable it is. Indeed, people are conditioned to "call the cops" as soon as anything goes wrong, even though in the vast amount of cases there was either no need for an authoritative figure to handle the problem or the cops aren't going to do anything for them anyway.

Getting onto thieves, they will steal to survive... if that floats their boats. They will not be respected and not fit in, and they will risk personal danger from people who may not want to see their goods lost... However their impacts on any single person will be minimal if the society in question pools their resources and cooperates... e.g., if your neighborhood possesses 10 lawnmowers and thieves steal one of them, you will feel the impact but not like if you owned only one and just for yourself. It's natural insurance, without setting up an institution to correct for capitalistic market failures.

"Property" is the prime mover of thievery, so I think we will find that thievery is obsolete in a property-less world. There will be a select few who are just weird who will still find value in it, but their effects will be far less dramatic than all the drama that we deal with now with cops and robbers. People will shame and pity them, and they will be more distressed about their sorry state than about the actual items they are relieved of. People don't need property in the slightest... although we do need territory to sleep in at nights. Differentiating property (contrived, happens only in certain societies albeit most at the moment) from territory (natural, happens in many animal species, is symbiotic in nature) is something I don't think many people do.
no comment
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 9:05:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:57:13 PM, Kleptin wrote:
While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.

I see no reason why not...
no comment
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 10:24:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post.

Declaring "honor" the highest value-- martial honor consists of the number x difficulty of opponents you have defeated. It's stupid to have as a primary value Such "Warriors" would serve no purpose but to conquer, rape, and plunder random countries.

Getting onto thieves, they will steal to survive... if that floats their boats. They will not be respected and not fit in, and they will risk personal danger from people who may not want to see their goods lost... However their impacts on any single person will be minimal if the society in question pools their resources and cooperates...
When they "pool their resources and cooperate" it's in the form of laws that result in shooting the thief.

While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.
Clerics are legal and regularly practicing at present. They just have no spell slots :P.

"Property" is the prime mover of thievery, so I think we will find that thievery is obsolete in a property-less world.
Thievery consists in depriving people of property. When deprivation is universal thievery has won.

People don't need property in the slightest...
I'm tempted to take your food, and then when you grow more food, take that too.
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.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:47:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I whole heartedly agree with you caramel. These kiddies who insult you don't know what its like. Maybe they should head over to revleft, or mythweavers, or tvtropes, or 4chan, and get harrassed for no reason by some punk who thinks just cause he's a "moderator", he can treat you like an animal. And watch as seemingly rational, decent people go along with it and mock you.

Now just immagine those moderators had guns, and the members paid taxes that paid the moderator good money... Thats essentially police. Police are useless. There's no reason you couldn't state your case as to what someone did any better then a "police investigation". It's just an excuse for a bunch of brutes to excersise power. The same way mods use "trolling and spam" as an excuse to ban and supress the opinions of all.

The threats suggested do not even outweight the costs, yet people are stupid and servilve. They go along with it anyway. The same way we could hack forums and make mod's life hell untill they back off, we could just stop cooperating with police. Remembering our rights, just making their job harder, more prison riots. Eventually people would stop joining the police force or demanding better pay which the state doesn't want to give them, (and can't cause we vote against it) meaning eventually the police will become a thing of the past. But it can't be done by individuals. People have to wakeup and stop expecting someone else to do it.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:13:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:57:13 PM, Kleptin wrote:
While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.

Charm person would certainly make dating easier.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:31:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 10:24:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.
Clerics are legal and regularly practicing at present. They just have no spell slots :P.

If they did less people would call them idiots and more people would want to be them.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 2:18:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 10:24:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post.

Declaring "honor" the highest value-- martial honor consists of the number x difficulty of opponents you have defeated. It's stupid to have as a primary value Such "Warriors" would serve no purpose but to conquer, rape, and plunder random countries.

You are describing a tyrant. Warriors cannot maintain honor doing those things, obviously. Honor is had by not resorting to brute force and it is multiplied when you have the force but sacrifice your pride to keep your honor (exercise the virtue of fortitude).

Your method would involve hired henchmen... honor is not maintained by rich warriors; they end up becoming tyrants.

When they "pool their resources and cooperate" it's in the form of laws that result in shooting the thief.

Capitalism deals with the problem, if your definition of "deals" is quite loose.

While we're at it, let's legalize Mages, Clerics, and Rangers.
Clerics are legal and regularly practicing at present. They just have no spell slots :P.

Exactly. Fortune tellers are prime examples, and there are lots of shops that sell "alternative" lifestyle items. I wandered into a bookstore and it was full of those books that look really sciency, but when you opened them up they were telling you to do things like wrap your house in tin foil... that type of stuff. Honestly, religion falls into this category as well if you broaden the category to its natural extent.

"Property" is the prime mover of thievery, so I think we will find that thievery is obsolete in a property-less world.
Thievery consists in depriving people of property. When deprivation is universal thievery has won.

Material goods are zero-sum... one person's loss is necessarily another's gain and universal thievery is not possible.

People don't need property in the slightest...
I'm tempted to take your food, and then when you grow more food, take that too.

In capitalism that would suck... in my psuedo-anarcho-communist-leftist-utopia, gardens would be everywhere. "In a recent NASA-sponsored study, researcher Cristina Milesi estimated the area covered by lawns in the United States to be about 128,000 square kilometers (nearly 32 million acres), making it the nation's largest irrigated crop by area."

In capitalism, we get grass. What's stopping us from planting millions of acres of gardens in these lots? Capitalism. People can't cooperate easily enough in capitalism because of property rights. And they don't have the time, space, money, energy, or expertise to garden themselves unless they are experts in gardening, because of wage labor. Removing property would let people garden more easily, and expert gardeners could command fleets of eager-to-learn gardener noobs in basic maintenance tasks... essentially economy of scales if you think about it. The free market, after all, works without capitalism.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 6:02:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Again, you know your political ideology is serious when you have to rely on psychological speculation. This philosophy reduces to "lets just torture/brainwash everyone to be good". supercough.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 8:57:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Property" is the prime mover of thievery, so I think we will find that thievery is obsolete in a property-less world.
Thievery consists in depriving people of property. When deprivation is universal thievery has won.

Material goods are zero-sum... one person's loss is necessarily another's gain
This is not true. Material goods have to be produced, and can be destroyed. No gift baskets fell from the sky for anyone when Nagasaki was bombed.

People don't need property in the slightest...
I'm tempted to take your food, and then when you grow more food, take that too.

In capitalism that would suck... in my psuedo-anarcho-communist-leftist-utopia, gardens would be everywhere.
Nah. No motive.

[quote]"In a recent NASA-sponsored study, researcher Cristina Milesi estimated the area covered by lawns in the United States to be about 128,000 square kilometers (nearly 32 million acres), making it the nation's largest irrigated crop by area."

In capitalism, we get grass.[/quote]
That's because some people want grass.
If there were less food, they'd stop growing grass-- assuming they could keep the food.

[quote]What's stopping us from planting millions of acres of gardens in these lots? [/quote]
The fact that it takes energy to do that, and you won't get the energy back when I steal the food from you.

[quote]Capitalism. People can't cooperate easily enough in capitalism because of property rights. [/quote]
It's precisely the fact that it's clearly defined what I can get from cooperation that makes it possible to cooperate. In your society I would never cooperate with anyone except to overthrow the system.
[quote]
And they don't have the time, space, money, energy, or expertise to garden themselves unless they are experts in gardening, because of wage labor.[/quote]
No, they don't have it because they aren't experts.

[quote]Removing property would let people garden more easily, and expert gardeners could command fleets of eager-to-learn gardener noobs in basic maintenance tasks[/quote]
No one has an incentive to become an expert gardener, or to command. No one has any means to determine what "expert" is, because the experts don't compete with each other to prove this by getting the most profits.

[quote]... essentially economy of scales if you think about it. The free market, after all, works without capitalism.
[/quote]
The free market IS capitalism, and requires property to operate.
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.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 8:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Charm person would certainly make dating easier.

If I had fireball, I wouldn't NEED charm person. Have you seen the radius? The size of a football feild! And assuming at maximum potential, 10d6 damage. An atomic bomb was statted somewhere at 100d6. So essentially fireball is equivalent to a high powered missle.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 8:14:39 PM, JimProfit wrote:
Charm person would certainly make dating easier.

If I had fireball, I wouldn't NEED charm person. Have you seen the radius? The size of a football feild! And assuming at maximum potential, 10d6 damage. An atomic bomb was statted somewhere at 100d6. So essentially fireball is equivalent to a high powered missle.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Alchemist's Fire" bull**** that's going on in the d20 system right now. Atomic bombs deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine atomic bomb in Israel for 2,400,000 shekels (that's about $635,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid Japan with my atomic bomb.
Israeli nuclear physicists spend years working on a single atomic bomb and program it up to a million times to produce the finest bombs known to mankind.
Atomic bombs are ****tons more explosive than regular bombs as and thrice as hardcore for that matter too. Anything a bomb can cut through, an atomic bomb can cut through better. I'm pretty sure an atomic bomb could easily bisect the Earth wearing full plate with a simple vertical drop.
Ever wonder why current day Iran never bothered conquering Israel? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Jews and their atomic bombs of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the atomic bombs first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Atomic bombs are simply the best explosives that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for atomic bombs:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1000d100 Damage 2-20 x4 Crit +200 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2000d100 Damage 2-20 x4 Crit +500 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the explosive power of atomic bombs in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = atomic bombs need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
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.