| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2538
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Allow any citizen not in the government employ the ability to file criminal charges against any government agent, officer, etc.
Right now, only the DA can file criminal charges, and there are some in the government in desperate need of having filed against them, but are protected because they are in the government.
My idea can be worked on a little, but I envision that a private citizen hiring a private lawyer, and all case costs paid by the government if the government agent is found guilty. Government attorneys may not defend government agents in these cases.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 5035
Local time: 9:29 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | I think any law could be repealed after a given amount of time, regardless of whether it meets it goals or not. |
That's not what actually happens though. Laws are left on the books. Often we don't even know why they were passed. Often, they do not do what they are intended to do, and produce unintended consequences. These laws are obviously not good to have on the books. Yet, everyone is so busy trying to pass new laws (usually almost completely willy nilly) there is no value seen in reviewing old laws and trying to repeal them.
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | This way all laws would have to be constanlty revoted. |
Good! That means that any law passed HAS to be reviewed and measured to be effective at what it was designed for. Laws are currently not accountable in anyway. If a law is effective, then the sunset clause does not apply and it is made permanent. The sunset clause only applies if it is not effective at what it is meant to do. All new laws are effectively passed with a probationary period.
Secondly, every law passed is another restriction on freedom. Having to review and evaluate effectiveness of laws coming up on the end of their sunset period means that Congress will have less time to create new laws, which is good for our freedoms. |
I'm pretty sure a lot of laws in the US are passed that way now, with set time frames. Even the Patriot Act had to be, unwisely, renewed. Some are passed, or attempted to be, as permanent. It's all in how they write the bill, and whether both houses will pass it that way and the Pres won't veto it.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | CET wrote: | | That's not what actually happens though. |
Yeah, I know, I was agreeing with your proposed ammendment, and adding my own suggestion.
Come to think of it... I agree with every single word your said in you last post... who are you and what have you done to CET?  |
I'm fine, it is you who have finally come to the dark side. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | Allow any citizen not in the government employ the ability to file criminal charges against any government agent, officer, etc.
Right now, only the DA can file criminal charges, and there are some in the government in desperate need of having filed against them, but are protected because they are in the government.
My idea can be worked on a little, but I envision that a private citizen hiring a private lawyer, and all case costs paid by the government if the government agent is found guilty. Government attorneys may not defend government agents in these cases. |
Yeah, that does seem to be a conflict of interest. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | CET wrote: | | Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | I think any law could be repealed after a given amount of time, regardless of whether it meets it goals or not. |
That's not what actually happens though. Laws are left on the books. Often we don't even know why they were passed. Often, they do not do what they are intended to do, and produce unintended consequences. These laws are obviously not good to have on the books. Yet, everyone is so busy trying to pass new laws (usually almost completely willy nilly) there is no value seen in reviewing old laws and trying to repeal them.
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | This way all laws would have to be constanlty revoted. |
Good! That means that any law passed HAS to be reviewed and measured to be effective at what it was designed for. Laws are currently not accountable in anyway. If a law is effective, then the sunset clause does not apply and it is made permanent. The sunset clause only applies if it is not effective at what it is meant to do. All new laws are effectively passed with a probationary period.
Secondly, every law passed is another restriction on freedom. Having to review and evaluate effectiveness of laws coming up on the end of their sunset period means that Congress will have less time to create new laws, which is good for our freedoms. |
I'm pretty sure a lot of laws in the US are passed that way now, with set time frames. Even the Patriot Act had to be, unwisely, renewed. Some are passed, or attempted to be, as permanent. It's all in how they write the bill, and whether both houses will pass it that way and the Pres won't veto it. |
Adding a sunset clause is one way to get a bill through that otherwise might not have enough votes. I'm suggesting that a sunset clause be required for every bill, as well as what the bill is expected to accomplish, and how that is to be measured.
What is the purpose of the PATRIOT Act? Has it accomplished that purpose? What measurable differences are there in America since it passed?
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2538
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The inability of private citizens to file criminal charges when the government refuses to act has been a peeve of mine for the last year. Ever since an asshole maliciously towed my car.
I reported him to the police, reported grand theft auto. The police told me since they had a valid towing form from the towing company there was no crime at all, and my only recourse was to sue him in civil court to make him pay for the release of my car. Then, when I tried to "citizen's arrest" the asshole, the police told me to leave him alone or I would be arrested. He did pay for the car's release, but I am not compensated for the time I didn't have the car but needed it.
Under my proposal I can't file criminal charges against the asshole, but that's when I became aware of the barrier on criminal charges only being filed by the DA. I've thought about it even more every time the LASD or the LAPD cooperates with the DEA on violating proposition 215 and raids a medical marijuana dispensary. There are plenty of cases where government officials deserve it but don't get it, such as charging the police who killed Don Scott were never charged with murder.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
Visit my wife's art gallery
Last edited by Jason_Harvestdancer on Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 5035
Local time: 9:29 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: |
Adding a sunset clause is one way to get a bill through that otherwise might not have enough votes. I'm suggesting that a sunset clause be required for every bill, as well as what the bill is expected to accomplish, and how that is to be measured.
What is the purpose of the PATRIOT Act? Has it accomplished that purpose? What measurable differences are there in America since it passed? |
Fair enough. I like the idea, although I don't know that it would be practical. Considering how little Congress gets done now, if they had to review and renew every old bill that was on the books on a regular base as well, they'd quickly get bogged down to the point that everything would grind to a halt.
...You know, on second thought, that sounds like a great idea. The less they're doing, the less they're fucking up.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | The inability of private citizens to file criminal charges when the government refuses to act has been a peeve of mine for the last year. Ever since an asshole maliciously towed my car.
I reported him to the police, reported grand theft auto. The police told me since they had a valid towing form from the towing company there was no crime at all, and my only recourse was to sue him in civil court to make him pay for the release of my car. Then, when I tried to "citizen's arrest" the asshole, the police told me to leave him alone or I would be arrested. He did pay for the car's release, but I am not compensated for the time I didn't have the car but needed it.
Under my proposal I can't file criminal charges against the asshole, but that's when I became of the barrier on criminal charges only being filed by the DA. I've thought about it even more every time the LASD or the LAPD cooperates with the DEA on violating proposition 215 and raids a medical marijuana dispensary. There are plenty of cases where government officials deserve it but don't get it, such as charging the police who killed Don Scott were never charged with murder. |
At least your money was compensated, which is better then many would get. I follow you though.
My pet peeve is watching cop every police car break ALL KINDS of traffic laws and I can't do crap about. Yet, they can pull me over and give me a ticket for doing exactly what they're doing. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've seen cop cars with no license plates at all. If I can't do it, neither can the cops.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spozmo
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 8:29 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
| spozmo wrote: | Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from? |
1. Laws are the codification for enforcement
2. From the fact that humans are made of and use scarce resources, and that to utilize those resources indicates a claim upon the self, i.e. self-ownership. |
I can smell the Rand on your breath, BAAWA; you might want to brush your teeth.
This is the part where we all jerk off over a piece of paper until it looks like The Objectivist Ethics, right? Ave Ayn, our mother who art in the dirt.
Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest? Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it?
Assuming you were going another direction, what was it?
Assuming you were not going any direction at all... well, that's par for the course.
Given that I've already responded to the next section, I'm cutting it until you respond intelligently (or at least intelligibly) to what I said.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
| spozmo wrote: | | I am currently studying quantum physics. |
Then how is it you don't know shit about it? |
Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one, I'm comfortable. They may not know shit about quantum physics, but at least they're pretty.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh, but you are. You believe that it's wrong when done to YOU. You think it's ok when done to others. That's a rule, bubba, like it or fucking not. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Yes, because you're saying "it's wrong" while desperately trying to look like you're not saying it, you fucking little cowardly shit. Fuck off and die, you cowardly little fuck. Fuck off and die. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I'm not saying it's morally wrong. I'm saying I don't like it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | And you're saying it shouldn't be done to you, but it's ok for it to be done to others. So you're saying it's morally wrong when done to you. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Ignoring and refuting are not the same thing. I"m not saying that it "shouldn't" be done to me. |
Yes, you are. That's why you'd try to get the person to not do it.
Fucking moron. |
Again, you ignored the fart example. I'll use something less silly. I am driving a car. My goal is to get to my house (point B) from where I am (A).
There are a bunch of growing between the cracks in my driveway along the path directly between A and B. If I drive straight there, I will kill them. Therefore, I drive around them. I would recommend that another person do the same in the same situation in his driveway.
I would be appealing to the standard "beauty", which both of us could still disagree on, of course, but I would NOT BE APPEALING TO MORALITY.
Please proceed to ignore the fact that you are getting your ass handed to you.
Speaking of cowardice, is it really so frightening to you that your actions might not be dictated by applying a formula? "The good and evil chart doesn't tell me if I should scratch my arm now! OH SHIT WHAT WILL I DO!" Stupid cryptotheist fuckwit.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | I am taking a stand on the existence of morality, |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | No you're not. You're just spouting fluff and thinking that it's a stand. |
| spozmo wrote: | | What, may I ask, other than your opinion, would you consider a stand on whether or not morality exists? Can you give examples? |
Actually stating that there is or isn't such a thing as morality and being consistent about it. You're contradicting yourself, so there's no real stand, at least in the sense that your words and deeds don't match up. |
See above.
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche
"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
| spozmo wrote: | Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | 1. Laws are the codification for enforcement
2. From the fact that humans are made of and use scarce resources, and that to utilize those resources indicates a claim upon the self, i.e. self-ownership. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I can smell the Rand on your breath, BAAWA; you might want to brush your teeth. |
You can? Really? Then why is it actually Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics, you fucking idiot?
You really wasted 5 fucking years studying ethics? Seriously? You know fucking shit about ethics, you blathering dolt.
| spozmo wrote: | | Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest? |
No, only you can.
| spozmo wrote: | | Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it? |
Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck.
| spozmo wrote: | | I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually. |
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down? |
| spozmo wrote: | | It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Ok. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I suspect you won't accept anything other than your own opinion as "not an evasion". |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | That's nice. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I already did. |
That's nice. Now answer the question with something that isn't an evasion.
| spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
| spozmo wrote: | | I am currently studying quantum physics. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Then how is it you don't know shit about it? |
| spozmo wrote: | | Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one, |
No, you're not. You're mangling what they said, you fucking idiot.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh, but you are. You believe that it's wrong when done to YOU. You think it's ok when done to others. That's a rule, bubba, like it or fucking not. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Yes, because you're saying "it's wrong" while desperately trying to look like you're not saying it, you fucking little cowardly shit. Fuck off and die, you cowardly little fuck. Fuck off and die. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I'm not saying it's morally wrong. I'm saying I don't like it. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | And you're saying it shouldn't be done to you, but it's ok for it to be done to others. So you're saying it's morally wrong when done to you. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Ignoring and refuting are not the same thing. I"m not saying that it "shouldn't" be done to me. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | Yes, you are. That's why you'd try to get the person to not do it.
Fucking moron. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Again, you ignored the fart example. |
Again, I didn't.
| spozmo wrote: | I'll use something less silly. I am driving a car. My goal is to get to my house (point B) from where I am (A).
There are a bunch of growing between the cracks in my driveway along the path directly between A and B. If I drive straight there, I will kill them. Therefore, I drive around them. I would recommend that another person do the same in the same situation in his driveway.
I would be appealing to the standard "beauty", which both of us could still disagree on, of course, but I would NOT BE APPEALING TO MORALITY. |
And, as such, you're changing the scope of the discussion. How nice of you to think you can throw that in and not get caught, you fucking idiot.
But feel free to continue in your self-delusion that I'm not handing you your ass in every post.
| spozmo wrote: | | Speaking of cowardice, is it really so frightening to you that your actions might not be dictated by applying a formula? |
Is it really so frightening to you that there are actual standards people should follow, and that rights shouldn't be violated? Why does that terrify you, you fucking idiot? Why are you such a fucking moron poseur?
| spozmo wrote: | | I am taking a stand on the existence of morality, |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | No you're not. You're just spouting fluff and thinking that it's a stand. |
| spozmo wrote: | | What, may I ask, other than your opinion, would you consider a stand on whether or not morality exists? Can you give examples? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Actually stating that there is or isn't such a thing as morality and being consistent about it. You're contradicting yourself, so there's no real stand, at least in the sense that your words and deeds don't match up. |
For what--more of your cowardly fucking stupidity?
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2538
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | The inability of private citizens to file criminal charges when the government refuses to act has been a peeve of mine for the last year. Ever since an asshole maliciously towed my car.
I reported him to the police, reported grand theft auto. The police told me since they had a valid towing form from the towing company there was no crime at all, and my only recourse was to sue him in civil court to make him pay for the release of my car. Then, when I tried to "citizen's arrest" the asshole, the police told me to leave him alone or I would be arrested. He did pay for the car's release, but I am not compensated for the time I didn't have the car but needed it.
Under my proposal I can't file criminal charges against the asshole, but that's when I became of the barrier on criminal charges only being filed by the DA. I've thought about it even more every time the LASD or the LAPD cooperates with the DEA on violating proposition 215 and raids a medical marijuana dispensary. There are plenty of cases where government officials deserve it but don't get it, such as charging the police who killed Don Scott were never charged with murder. |
At least your money was compensated, which is better then many would get. I follow you though.
My pet peeve is watching cop every police car break ALL KINDS of traffic laws and I can't do crap about. Yet, they can pull me over and give me a ticket for doing exactly what they're doing. |
Look what happens when some try to make the rules apply to our rulers...
Wiretap case dims prospects of man, 18
Recording traffic stop brought felony count
Couple Catches Neighborhood Speeders, Police Officer
The officer then sought a warrant against the couple for stalking
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12866
Local time: 5:29 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | CET wrote: | At least your money was compensated, which is better then many would get. I follow you though.
My pet peeve is watching cop every police car break ALL KINDS of traffic laws and I can't do crap about. Yet, they can pull me over and give me a ticket for doing exactly what they're doing. |
Look what happens when some try to make the rules apply to our rulers...
Wiretap case dims prospects of man, 18
Recording traffic stop brought felony count
Couple Catches Neighborhood Speeders, Police Officer
The officer then sought a warrant against the couple for stalking |
Yet another reason I don't respect most police officers. There are a few that are really stand up individuals, but they're the exception rather then the rule.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spozmo
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 8:29 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
| spozmo wrote: | Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | 1. Laws are the codification for enforcement
2. From the fact that humans are made of and use scarce resources, and that to utilize those resources indicates a claim upon the self, i.e. self-ownership. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I can smell the Rand on your breath, BAAWA; you might want to brush your teeth. |
You can? Really? Then why is it actually Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics, you fucking idiot?
You really wasted 5 fucking years studying ethics? Seriously? You know fucking shit about ethics, you blathering dolt. |
I've never heard of this. And actually, I've spent 5 years studying philosophy in general.
Care to explain or link to something I could read about it?
It seems from an initial reading that it relies on the idea of determinate concepts, which are an article of faith at best and more likely just bullshit.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest? |
No, only you can. |
On what basis?
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | spozmo wrote: | | Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it? |
Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck. |
Then how does it work?
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
| spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
| spozmo wrote: | | I am currently studying quantum physics. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Then how is it you don't know shit about it? |
| spozmo wrote: | | Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one, |
No, you're not. You're mangling what they said, you fucking idiot. |
Then tell me what they said.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
| spozmo wrote: | I'll use something less silly. I am driving a car. My goal is to get to my house (point B) from where I am (A).
There are a bunch of growing between the cracks in my driveway along the path directly between A and B. If I drive straight there, I will kill them. Therefore, I drive around them. I would recommend that another person do the same in the same situation in his driveway.
I would be appealing to the standard "beauty", which both of us could still disagree on, of course, but I would NOT BE APPEALING TO MORALITY. |
And, as such, you're changing the scope of the discussion. How nice of you to think you can throw that in and not get caught, you fucking idiot.
But feel free to continue in your self-delusion that I'm not handing you your ass in every post. |
The purpose of this example was a way in which I could tell people they should not do something in a way which didn't relate to morality. I say I don't want you to steal from me or hurt people I care about. If we don't share the same moral constructs, then I can't do it on the basis of morality, so I try another. Fundamentally, though, my only real recourse is violence.
I'm sorry if you find following a coherent conversation difficult. I could throw the word fuck in there every so often it would make things easier for you.
OBTW, Please keep your hand away from my ass.
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche
"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:29 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I propose that you haven't got a clue as to what morality is. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what it is. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Rules for the group, as it were, pertaining to interpersonal interaction. |
| spozmo wrote: | Two questions:
1. How is this different from law?
2. Where does it come from? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | 1. Laws are the codification for enforcement
2. From the fact that humans are made of and use scarce resources, and that to utilize those resources indicates a claim upon the self, i.e. self-ownership. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I can smell the Rand on your breath, BAAWA; you might want to brush your teeth. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | You can? Really? Then why is it actually Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics, you fucking idiot?
You really wasted 5 fucking years studying ethics? Seriously? You know fucking shit about ethics, you blathering dolt. |
| spozmo wrote: | | I've never heard of this. And actually, I've spent 5 years studying philosophy in general. |
Once again: 5 fucking wasted years. You've been studying the wrong things, bucko.
| spozmo wrote: | | Care to explain or link to something I could read about it? |
No problem.
http://www.mises.org/story/1646
| spozmo wrote: | | It seems from an initial reading that it relies on the idea of determinate concepts, which are an article of faith at best and more likely just bullshit. |
Once again: you've wasted 5 fucking years on bullshit, so I think it's me who we'll be believing.
| spozmo wrote: | | Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | No, only you can. |
| spozmo wrote: | | On what basis? |
That it's your life, and you know best how to run it. I would think that's pretty fucking self-evident, wouldn't you? I mean: how the fuck am I supposed to know what's best for you? How is anyone else? It's your life. You have your own values. Your own goals. You are the one who knows best.
| spozmo wrote: | | Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then how does it work? |
Well, it works by not assuming a hollywood script filled with hatred of those who have more than you.
| spozmo wrote: | | How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles? |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you? |
| spozmo wrote: | | I am currently studying quantum physics. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Then how is it you don't know shit about it? |
| spozmo wrote: | | Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one, |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | No, you're not. You're mangling what they said, you fucking idiot. |
| spozmo wrote: | | Then tell me what they said. |
That, for instance, photons, while a discrete packet, are merely just an electromagnetic wave. A specific burst to be sure, but a wave nonetheless.
Look: get over your postmodernist interpretation. Reality is what it is.
| spozmo wrote: | I'll use something less silly. I am driving a car. My goal is to get to my house (point B) from where I am (A).
There are a bunch of growing between the cracks in my driveway along the path directly between A and B. If I drive straight there, I will kill them. Therefore, I drive around them. I would recommend that another person do the same in the same situation in his driveway.
I would be appealing to the standard "beauty", which both of us could still disagree on, of course, but I would NOT BE APPEALING TO MORALITY. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | And, as such, you're changing the scope of the discussion. How nice of you to think you can throw that in and not get caught, you fucking idiot.
But feel free to continue in your self-delusion that I'm not handing you your ass in every post. |
| spozmo wrote: | | The purpose of this example |
Was to try to change the scope of the discussion.
And you're the one who tried to tell me you were handing me my ass. Such a deluded little fucktard you are.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
