SOCAL's Razor

[SOCALHUSKER]

Does it really matter to the extent that it happens? What matters is that it happens at all. Theft is theft not matter who does it and no matter what cause you may claim its for.

[knapplc]

Examples

 

WHO- Ed and Elaine Brown, Larkin Rose, Wesley Snipes, Irwin Shiff and a few others.

 

Those are examples of people who used services (military protection, roads, fire department, police, etc) and tried to get away without paying for them. Kind of like dining and dashing.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Examples

 

WHO- Ed and Elaine Brown, Larkin Rose, Wesley Snipes, Irwin Shiff and a few others.

 

Those are examples of people who used services (military protection, roads, fire department, police, etc) and tried to get away without paying for them. Kind of like dining and dashing.

Really? Dining and dashing? Because they had a choice of whether or not they wanted the services to begin with? And even if they did chose to use and purchase the services, does the option of one government provider even make it a choice? How hard is it to to grasp the difference between what is voluntary and what is coercive? If there is no difference, then why is it punishable by jail, or worse, for me to do the things I stated earlier?

 

Why can't I go to your home, without your permission, completely rip out your lawn and existing plants, install sprinklers and maybe even plant all veggies? For we all need to eat, right? Why can't I, without your permission; neuter, groom or even kill your pets? They could be ugly or even harmful, and everyone needs to be safe, right? Or why can't I, without your permission; remove the wheels, engine and paint from your car or truck? The smog and fumes it emits and the rubber used is bad for the environment, and we need to preserve it for future generations, right? Why can't I do those things, whether you want me to or not, and then expect you to pay me for those services? I was providing you a service, right? So, according to you, and all those who support government, it's only right that you be forced, at gunpoint, to pay me. And if you refused I would throw you in a cage or if you refused the cage I would murder you. Does that still sound ok, moral or just to you?

 

Why is it that all the things done above would be offensive and a violation of property rights if performed by any individual, but if those same things are done or performed by someone representing the state, they somehow are deemed legitimate and ok?

[knapplc]

Really? Dining and dashing? Because they had a choice of whether or not they wanted the services to begin with? And even if they did choose to use and purchase the services, does the option of one government provider even make it a choice? How hard is it to to grasp the difference between what is voluntary and what is coercive? If there is no difference, then why is it punishable by jail, or worse, for me to do the things I stated earlier?

 

Why can't I go to your home, without your permission, completely rip out your lawn and existing plants, install sprinklers and maybe even plant all veggies? For we all need to eat, right? Why can't I, without your permission; neuter, groom or even kill your pets? They could be ugly or even harmful, and everyone needs to be safe, right? Or why can't I, without your permission; remove the wheels, engine and paint from your car or truck? The smog and fumes it emits and the rubber used is bad for the environment, and we need to preserve it for future generetions, right? Why can't I do those things, whether you want me to or not, and then expect you to pay me for those services? I was providing you a service, right? So, according to you, and all those who support government, it's only right that you be forced, at gunpoint, to pay me. And if you refused I would throw you in a cage or if you refused the cage I would murder you. Does that still sound ok, moral or just to you?

 

Why is it that all the things done above would be offensive and a violation of property rights if performed by any individual, but if those same things are done or performed by someone representing the state, they somehow are deemed legitimate and ok?

 

You can't go to my home and do those things because I and the rest of the citizens enacted a law that says you can't. The good news is, your country has a representative government. If you can get a majority of folks to side with you, you can get laws enacted that support your ideals. If not... well, you're out of luck. If only you were one of the Founding Fathers, we'd live in a hippopotamus applesauce Utopia.

[SOCALHUSKER]

You can't go to my home and do those things because I and the rest of the citizens enacted a law that says you can't. The good news is, your country has a representative government. If you can get a majority of folks to side with you, you can get laws enacted that support your ideals. If not... well, you're out of luck. If only you were one of the Founding Fathers, we'd live in a hippopotamus applesauce Utopia.

So mob rule it is. Glad to see you finally admit that violence and theft are ok, as long as the majority sides with you. What happens when the majority decides that they want to take your life, home, children or outlaw your religion; and even pass "laws" to do it? Is it still ok then? I mean, the good news is we have representatives, so you can't say you didn't had a fair chance, but its too bad we must follow what the majority says, right? Better luck next time... well, maybe if reincarnation is true!!

 

Seriously, how retarded is that?

[knapplc]

You can't go to my home and do those things because I and the rest of the citizens enacted a law that says you can't. The good news is, your country has a representative government. If you can get a majority of folks to side with you, you can get laws enacted that support your ideals. If not... well, you're out of luck. If only you were one of the Founding Fathers, we'd live in a hippopotamus applesauce Utopia.

So mob rule it is. Glad to see you finally admit that violence and theft are ok, as long as the majority sides with you. What happens when the majority decides that they want to take your life, home, children or outlaw your religion; and even pass "laws" to do it? Is it still ok then? I mean, the good news is we have representatives, so you can't say you didn't had a fair chance, but its too bad we must follow what the majority says, right? Better luck next time... well, maybe if reincarnation is true!!

 

Seriously, how retarded is that?

Show me a democracy where this has happened and we'll talk. Otherwise it's another fantasy.

[SOCALHUSKER]

You can't go to my home and do those things because I and the rest of the citizens enacted a law that says you can't. The good news is, your country has a representative government. If you can get a majority of folks to side with you, you can get laws enacted that support your ideals. If not... well, you're out of luck. If only you were one of the Founding Fathers, we'd live in a hippopotamus applesauce Utopia.

So mob rule it is. Glad to see you finally admit that violence and theft are ok, as long as the majority sides with you. What happens when the majority decides that they want to take your life, home, children or outlaw your religion; and even pass "laws" to do it? Is it still ok then? I mean, the good news is we have representatives, so you can't say you didn't had a fair chance, but its too bad we must follow what the majority says, right? Better luck next time... well, maybe if reincarnation is true!!

 

Seriously, how retarded is that?

Show me a democracy where this has happened and we'll talk. Otherwise it's another fantasy.

Does Germany and World War II ring a bell? Iraq? Iran? Venezuela? Kosovo? Zimbabwe? Italy? Israel? How many failures of democracy do you need?

 

Edit: A brief synopsis from the book I linked to.

[knapplc]

Iraq, Iran, The Soviet Union, Venezuela, Kosovo, Zimbabwe and Italy were all victims of revolution by strong-arm juntas. Not one of these countries voted in laws that abrogated rights, and not one of them support your contention. What do you do, just randomly list countries hoping that your opponent doesn't know their history?

 

Are you claiming your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is revolution-proof? Because if it is, I'd love to know how.

 

And thank you for invoking Godwin's Law. I figured you'd get there sooner or later.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Iraq, Iran, The Soviet Union, Venezuela, Kosovo, Zimbabwe and Italy were all victims of revolution by strong-arm juntas. Not one of these countries voted in laws that abrogated rights, and not one of them support your contention. What do you do, just randomly list countries hoping that your opponent doesn't know their history?

 

Are you claiming your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is revolution-proof? Because if it is, I'd love to know how.

 

And thank you for invoking Godwin's Law. I figured you'd get there sooner or later.

Which just so happened to be a result of democracy and democratically elected leaders, so study up.

 

And no, I never said that anarchism is anything-proof, only that it is more beneficial and moral for each and every individual. How moral or beneficial is a system based on theft and violence?

 

And just so you know, Godwin's Law has nothing to do with the relevancy of what I stated, it merely makes reference to the possiblity that Hitler, Germany or Nazism will come up in a lengthy discussion. So in other words, Big Deal!!

 

[quoute]The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

[knapplc]

Which just so happened to be a result of democracy and democratically elected leaders, so study up.

 

And no, I never said that anarchism is anything-proof, only that it is more beneficial and moral for each and every individual. How moral or beneficial is theft and violence?

 

If you're just going to start making stuff up you can stop any time. The countries you cited were not "the results of democracy." You may just as well have said that Mussolini was just trying to catch a train and accidentally took over the country.

[Enhance]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Which just so happened to be a result of democracy and democratically elected leaders, so study up.

 

And no, I never said that anarchism is anything-proof, only that it is more beneficial and moral for each and every individual. How moral or beneficial is theft and violence?

 

If you're just going to start making stuff up you can stop any time. The countries you cited were not "the results of democracy." You may just as well have said that Mussolini was just trying to catch a train and accidentally took over the country.

Yeah, that's it. Are you going to answer the question I proposed? Did you simply overlook it again or instead are you employing more excuses and diversion tactics in hopes that it gets ignored and goes away?

 

Once again, how moral or beneficial is a system based on theft and violence? And don't even bother with your false premise BS, because I have already proven that government's existence is based upon theft, violence and the supposed legitimacy that when either are done by government they are ok, but when done by others they warrant punishment. So, please just answer the question.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

[knapplc]

Once again, how moral or beneficial is a system based on theft and violence? And don't even bother with your false premise BS, because I have already proven that government's existence is based upon theft, violence and the supposed legitimacy that when either are done by government they are ok, but when done by others they warrant punishment. So, please just answer the question.

 

You haven't "proven" anything of the kind. You just keep repeating "theft and violence, theft and violence" over and over as if it's real. You've "proven" that government is based on "theft and violence" just like I've "proven" that the society you advocate is based on hippopotamus applesauce. Simply repeating something over and over and ignoring facts like "I voluntarily pay my taxes" doesn't make you right, it makes you an ostrich with your head in the sand.

[knapplc]

I don't think knapplc meant that the farmer can "only eat bread" and nothing else. I think he was using bread as a tool to encompass all foods. You could plug in any kind of food producer for his example, but I believe he just chose bread because going into detail with every other type of food would be mundane.

 

It's kind of like the saying give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Obviously, you can't just eat fish because that is an unhealthy diet. But the point of that saying is knowing how to do something is better than being given what you need for a day.

 

This is not me offering my opinion on the matter, just saying what I think knapplc meant. If I am wrong though, knapplc can correct me.

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong

No, Enhance is 100% correct. Your failure to understand that helps explain why you can't grasp the futility of your hippopotamus applesauce utopia.