SOCAL's Razor

[carlfense]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

Except that one is reality and the other is YOUR imagination.

[carlfense]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

Except that one is reality and the other is YOUR imagination.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

[Husker_x]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

Except that one is reality and the other is YOUR imagination.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

 

It is admittedly the most perplexing non-stance on anything I've seen in quite awhile. I don't know when Reality comes back from vacation, but I hope it's sometime before Socal manages to eliminate world government, religion, communism, and irrational thinking.

[carlfense]

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

It is admittedly the most perplexing non-stance on anything I've seen in quite awhile. I don't know when Reality comes back from vacation, but I hope it's sometime before Socal manages to eliminate world government, religion, communism, and irrational thinking.

I wait with bated breath.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

Except that one is reality and the other is YOUR imagination.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

Ahh the irony!!

 

Wise words coming from the person who refuses to acknowledge that taxation is theft, who somehow believes government is voluntary, and who simply ignores the effects of what he advocates.

 

And Husker_X,

 

Are you implying that theft and coercion by government are not real? Or that you have proof of someone who is absolutely going to blow up the earth with his individually homemade nuke?

[Husker_x]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

Oh the irony. The headline reads:

 

"Violent Coercive Monopoly" Crier Calls Others "Queens of Scare Tactics."

 

Fit for the supermarket checkout line, it is.

Except that one is reality and the other is YOUR imagination.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

Ahh the irony!!

 

Wise words coming from the person who refuses to acknowledge that taxation is theft, who somehow believes government is voluntary, and who simply ignores the effects of what he advocates.

 

And Husker_X,

 

Are you implying that theft and coercion by government are not real? Or that you have proof of someone who is absolutely going to blow up the earth with his individually homemade nuke?

 

I have proof that in your desperation to promote your favorite topic you will never even admit with any measure of objectivity that serious problems are going to come up. I also believe that to hide your shame on the issue you rely solely on rhetorical turnarounds that remove you from the position of having to answer questions. Since you will not assume the burden of proof or deal honestly with the questions, there's nothing for me to respond to.

 

The nukes are only one example, but the best example. As for proof of what would happen, feel free to contact any of your local terrorist cells and ask them what they would do if they were able to get their hands on a nuclear device. The point that you seem to miss is that it only takes one nut this time. Again, it's a matter of risk assessment.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I have proof that in your desperation to promote your favorite topic you will never even admit with any measure of objectivity that serious problems are going to come up. I also believe that to hide your shame on the issue you rely solely on rhetorical turnarounds that remove you from the position of having to answer questions. Since you will not assume the burden of proof or deal honestly with the questions, there's nothing for me to respond to.

Really? I don't admit that humans can act irrational? I don't admit that weapons can exist? I recognize all the same problems that you do I just refuse to advocate shoving a gun in someone else's face and forcing them to fund and comply with whatever I subjectively deem to be the solution. There's absolutely nothing objective about your wishes and fears. If you believe there is, then what?

 

The nukes are only one example, but the best example. As for proof of what would happen, feel free to contact any of your local terrorist cells and ask them what they would do if they were able to get their hands on a nuclear device. The point that you seem to miss is that it only takes one nut this time. Again, it's a matter of risk assessment.

An example of what? You claim that me asking a terrorist what they would do with a nuclear weapon, one they probably could never afford to get in the first place, is proof of what you advance as a logical argument. However what you fail to realize is that you can't even prove that with the coercive monopoly you advocate, one which we have in place today, that you can stop a terrorist from flying a plane into a building, let alone keep him from secretly making, buying or deploying a nuclear weapon. So, regardless of whatever scary ideas, dreams or fears you have about some nutcase blowing up the world, no amount of government theft and violence will ever save you or keep that from happening. And in the meantime, you also have the problem of your own protector robbing you and dictating how you live. Sounds like a pretty logical and rational argument to me.

 

And you keep mentioning risk assessment as if the government is some sort of insurance company, well it's not. It's a extortion racket mixed with a ponzi scheme. One which we all are forced to pay into, whether we want to or not. It doesn't assess risk, it creates risks. As Hoppe points out, it is the only supposed "producer" that doesn't just produce goods, but also produces bads. When it figures this out, as it always does, it will unnecessarily produce bads to keep itself in business and the endless history of government conflict, and the consequences of it, proves that. What I advocate is real insurance. Only insurance competing in a free market, one in which the one with the best services and best prices are the most successful, one that is voluntary and one that doesn't produce bad's but rather seeks to reduces them in order to make more money.

[Enhance]

I wonder how many more circles this thread has to go through before it can just be done with and locked. It's getting redundant. This thread will get to page infinity before any of these happen:

 

1) One side gives in to the other.

2) Something new is added to the argument that hasn't been said once before.

[Husker_x]

I actually let myself get away from my original point in posting another question. There is no arguing with this kind of delusion. A chapter from a Michael Shermer book comes to mind, 'Why Smart People Believe Weird Things', and it's not because they've had some insight into human experience. It's because they're better at rationalizing away problems in their world view. The purpose of asking the nuclear weapons question was to finish the debate with an exclamation point. Not to change Socal's mind––it's literally impossible. But for anyone reading this and flirting with this nonsense.

 

All you need to consider is the following:

 

Socal's anarchy would allow for any person with the resources to purchase world-ending nuclear weapons and then deny you the right to preemptively defend against their use.

 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is his anarchy in one sentence. Do you want to live in one?

 

I didn't think so.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I actually let myself get away from my original point in posting another question. There is no arguing with this kind of delusion. A chapter from a Michael Shermer book comes to mind, 'Why Smart People Believe Weird Things', and it's not because they've had some insight into human experience. It's because they're better at rationalizing away problems in their world view. The purpose of asking the nuclear weapons question was to finish the debate with an exclamation point. Not to change Socal's mind––it's literally impossible. But for anyone reading this and flirting with this nonsense.

 

All you need to consider is the following:

 

Socal's anarchy would allow for any person with the resources to purchase world-ending nuclear weapons and then deny you the right to preemptively defend against their use.

 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is his anarchy in one sentence. Do you want to live in one?

 

I didn't think so.

Sounds like a bunch of psycho-babble to me. Nothing against this Michael Shermer guy, but it's hard for me to take anyone who considers himself a “cycling enthusiast” seriously. Better at rationalizing away problems in their world view? Maybe, but maybe they're just better at thinking of how things would work that have never, before, been attempted. There are a number of explanations, and even though I was joking about taking a cycling enthusiast seriously, it is hard for me to take psychological theories with anything but a grain of salt. Tom Cruise was right. LINK

 

I also think there are some people in here that really don't want SOCAL to be right about anything because it would mean they're wrong. Notice that I didn't name any names, or suggest I meant you or anyone else. At times, though, it feels like things have gotten to the point where people aren't even trying to understand where he's coming from; they're just trying to end the discussion quickly because they don't want to read it anymore. It's kind of sad really.

[Enhance]

Sounds like a bunch of psycho-babble to me. Nothing against this Michael Shermer guy, but it's hard for me to take anyone who considers himself a “cycling enthusiast” seriously. Better at rationalizing away problems in their world view? Maybe, but maybe they're just better at thinking of how things would work that have never, before, been attempted. There are a number of explanations, and even though I was joking about taking a cycling enthusiast seriously, it is hard for me to take psychological theories with anything but a grain of salt. Tom Cruise was right. LINK

 

I also think there are some people in here that really don't want SOCAL to be right about anything because it would mean they're wrong. Notice that I didn't name any names, or suggest I meant you or anyone else. At times, though, it feels like things have gotten to the point where people aren't even trying to understand where he's coming from; they're just trying to end the discussion quickly because they don't want to read it anymore. It's kind of sad really.

Here's the thing about your last paragraph there.

 

SOCAL is dead set in his point of view and is inherently against changing it, as anyone can tell from his posts. There are others on this board that are vehemently against what SOCAL is saying. These "others" will provide proof or real life examples to back up what they are saying, and then SOCAL will provide his own proof or suggestions to back up what he is saying. We're in a situation with this discussion where neither side will give the other any ground. We're also to the point where the discussion is being taken out of context or the same things are just getting repeated over, and over, and over again until they just become useless commodities in the eyes of the reader.

 

Once you hit a brick wall with someone, you don't feel like continuing the discussion any more, am I right? Some are just sick of talking about. SOCAL won't be sick of talking about it because he's in the minority and there are people here that he can suggest his opinions too. However, the majority just doesn't want to hear it anymore.

 

Sometimes, you can only say too much where any further correspondence is futile and mundane. I believe that's the wall people have hit. It's not sad by any means. It's knowing when to stop..when a discussion has run it's course. It seems like there are plenty of people that "understand where he is coming from", they're just tired of listening to it. And that is nothing against SOCAL, because it's a free country and he's entitled to his opinions. But another important cog in our society is being able to listen to what you want and choose what you want to believe. I, for one, am just sick of listening.

[Husker_x]

Enhance is 100% correct. When people are writing Socal's responses for him (Carlfense, for example) and they turn out to be exactly what you'd expect, you've reached a saturation point where there is absolutely nothing left to say. It's been said. People reading can take it or leave it. Debate is almost never for the two people arguing, but for the benefit of those watching the argument.

 

That said, jnkyrdoff6, if you have somehow managed to pour over these pages and all the other anarchist discussion threads, and you're still not satisfied on a point, take your turn at bat.

 

By the way, Shermer isn't a psychologist and the book which the refernece came from, Why People Believe Weird Things, has less to do with the science of psychology than paranormal phenomena and the superiority of skepticism to credulity.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Sounds like a bunch of psycho-babble to me. Nothing against this Michael Shermer guy, but it's hard for me to take anyone who considers himself a “cycling enthusiast” seriously. Better at rationalizing away problems in their world view? Maybe, but maybe they're just better at thinking of how things would work that have never, before, been attempted. There are a number of explanations, and even though I was joking about taking a cycling enthusiast seriously, it is hard for me to take psychological theories with anything but a grain of salt. Tom Cruise was right. LINK

 

I also think there are some people in here that really don't want SOCAL to be right about anything because it would mean they're wrong. Notice that I didn't name any names, or suggest I meant you or anyone else. At times, though, it feels like things have gotten to the point where people aren't even trying to understand where he's coming from; they're just trying to end the discussion quickly because they don't want to read it anymore. It's kind of sad really.

Here's the thing about your last paragraph there.

 

SOCAL is dead set in his point of view and is inherently against changing it, as anyone can tell from his posts. There are others on this board that are vehemently against what SOCAL is saying. These "others" will provide proof or real life examples to back up what they are saying, and then SOCAL will provide his own proof or suggestions to back up what he is saying. We're in a situation with this discussion where neither side will give the other any ground. We're also to the point where the discussion is being taken out of context or the same things are just getting repeated over, and over, and over again until they just become useless commodities in the eyes of the reader.

 

Once you hit a brick wall with someone, you don't feel like continuing the discussion any more, am I right? Some are just sick of talking about. SOCAL won't be sick of talking about it because he's in the minority and there are people here that he can suggest his opinions too. However, the majority just doesn't want to hear it anymore.

 

Sometimes, you can only say too much where any further correspondence is futile and mundane. I believe that's the wall people have hit. It's not sad by any means. It's knowing when to stop..when a discussion has run it's course. It seems like there are plenty of people that "understand where he is coming from", they're just tired of listening to it. And that is nothing against SOCAL, because it's a free country and he's entitled to his opinions. But another important cog in our society is being able to listen to what you want and choose what you want to believe. I, for one, am just sick of listening.

I understand where you're coming from. For me personally though, I'm not really reading forums in this area to persuade other people. When I ask SOCAL a question, it really just comes from me wanting to understand where he's coming from, and find out what his stance on the matter is. I'll agree that SOCAL is pretty dead-set in his political beliefs, and I wouldn't say he's blameless, but when you're in a politics and religion thread, is it really necessary to try to persuade someone of your beliefs and pick knits over various things? In some ways, I think it detracts from what could be a better atmosphere on this board. I'm just saying that I see a lot of bickering over various things, and some of that is healthy, but sometimes it gets ridiculous. From your responses, I gather you feel the same way there. The real problem is not just SOCAL, but neither group wants to give an inch, so both sides keep rehashing the same stuff. It's partly our competitive instinct, but it could turn out to be beneficial. I don't know. I just think that if there's something you disagree with someone else on, there's no reason to get on the defensive about it. I think that's a part of what creates this never ending discussion over the same points. I just think you should present SOCAL with examples of why you don't think something will work, and ask him how he can reconcile that. Some people have done a good job of it from what I've read, but I've also seen some pretty defensive posts.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Enhance is 100% correct. When people are writing Socal's responses for him (Carlfense, for example) and they turn out to be exactly what you'd expect, you've reached a saturation point where there is absolutely nothing left to say. It's been said. People reading can take it or leave it. Debate is almost never for the two people arguing, but for the benefit of those watching the argument.

 

That said, jnkyrdoff6, if you have somehow managed to pour over these pages and all the other anarchist discussion threads, and you're still not satisfied on a point, take your turn at bat.

 

By the way, Shermer isn't a psychologist and the book which the refernece came from, Why People Believe Weird Things, has less to do with the science of psychology than paranormal phenomena and the superiority of skepticism to credulity.

Yeah, I read up on him a little when I was writing the response. I just meant that the quote sounded like a psychological theory. I didn't mean to totally dismiss it though. It is an interesting theory. I was just trying to say that I'm very skeptical when I hear theories that deal with human behavioral patterns.