On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:08:30 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
What's worse, it'll redefine criminal!
Of course. So, why should any sane person support such a system?
Because it helps you.
It doesn't help me. It's a criminal organization that only helps itself and its criminal partners.
Consistently applied and effective justice
The state doesn't provide justice.
I think it's important to create law that's conservative and very morally and ethically neutral.
OK. At this point you are pretty much some kind of bot.
I think justice should not depend upon ethics very much at all.
You don't know what justice is.
You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without
any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you achieve?
Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, etc. These are valuable, aren't they?
Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent organizations on the planet.
It's a fucking for virginity kind of thing.
Yes, that's your position. A clear contradiction in terms. An absurdity. Nonsense. You are supposed to present some kind of rational argument here. Crass contradictions are just the opposite of rational argument. The game is totally and completely over and you lost big time.
As to the complex arrangements that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to have them.
True, but we have made it far easier by ways of state.
False.
It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'.
Economies of scale is one reason. The other is singular ginormous efforts. The pyramids are an example, but also the space race, this boat
What are you talking about. Who gives a fuck about the pyramids or the space race? Oh you think people should be sacrificed for your retarded collective pet projects?
Not just commerce; CERN is awesome!
cern is a useless piece of shit - it's welfare for scammers who pretend to be 'scientists'.
Related; I think we can produce a formal logic for politics.
Really.
One could model the amount of coercion upon an actor, how much a tax exemption would create incentives.
I'm sorry for not having good examples.
Don't worry. Your nonsense is horribly bad as it is...
We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior.
What is the 'correct' behaviour?
For the system's actors to behave as they should, as determined by the system.
Do you have anything else apart from blatant contradictions and cicular 'logic'?
In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions.
We've yet to find a system that works.
Define 'works'.
Does what it says on the tin.
Whatever. Did I mention that your ramblings are pretty much a description of the 'system' we have now. I honestly don't know what you are complaining about.
Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn the ABC of poltical theory.
I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda.
Well yes, there are varying levels of propaganda in political philosophy. There are some sound principles too.
You think people should be free, and things organized according to 'market principles' in some areas, but not in others. Problem is, being 'free' to follow arbitrary rules isn't exactly freedom.
Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway. It means you can't be "forced" to do something, but it's very rare for death not to be an alternative choice. Reality narrows our choices most significantly, but through law and enforcement we can change the "economic landscape" and cause what once was the best choice ('deepest valley') to become only meh, or very not good ('high ridge'). I guess freedom is when you have no (clear) optimal choices, which isn't actually preferable.
"Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway" More meaningless rambling. Are you high or something?
Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets.
LMAO. Mathematics is for counting stuff.
In practice the actors do not obey perfectly, and cause a lot of reality. Additionally, while a market is finding it's optimum (the best way to do a certain thing) competition actually has significant cost. Sometimes reality shifts faster than markets anneal, and we get stuck with a lot of competition instead of expediting that energy to moving towards the ideal solution. (also game theory)
Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"?
Literally? A very good criminal monopoly would excel at being criminal. I don't think that's what you want?
There you go using criminal as if it means something :)
It means nothing to amoralist nutcases.
Uhm, the ideal criminal monopoly, to me, would be criminal enough to ensure it's own existence, and do things I like as well. Like advancing humanity.
lol... Shouldn't you learn the ABC and master BASIC LOGICAL THINKING before trying to 'advance humanity'? Are you fucking crazy? You can't grasp BASIC LOGIC and yet you want to 'advance humanity'??
I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights.
That's not what 'right(s)' means. Or rather that's the kind of 'rights' that governments rely upon. Arbitrary dictates backed by force.
Rights are defined by government,
Are you completely retarded or what. a self restraint alike "I'll never
drink again". But I don't think that's very meaningful. Rights are supposed to be impossible to violate.
whatever you say.
If the government is incapable of violating the right, then it's a right. But by that point it's synonymous with a citizen's power. In practice "rights" are barriers, not absolute restraints.
Ugh, linguistics.
You mean, you wrote pages of absurd ramblings? Yeah.
You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural
rights are a more legalistic description of common sense morality.
You can probably kill a few random people right now if you want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that you *can* kill people means killing people is morally right?
Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist.
Natural rights are entirely different from rights. It is as you say, a plea for encoding some specific morality into law. Claiming something is a natural right seems to imply that it's been a right since before the politics determined what is and isn't a right. I think it's pretty meaningless,
Because you are some kind of psycho.
but I deeply empathize with the emotions involved.
I don't think so.
Ask the mountains thought to have spirits.
That's a poetic license.
Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man.
Fuck you.
I would point out (again) that 1) your understanding of natural rights isn't...right. 2) that even current states pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'.
I think my understanding is still not aligned. What states pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'?
Like I said, do your fucking homework.
I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a compelling opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably not good enough.
Oh that's a good point. So now you wearing your anarchist hat? =P
It's my plan for world domination. I just make a system that's so nice everyone will come running.
You are nuts. NOW, I've had enough.