On 11/16/2016 11:05 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
What's being asked for (and no, I have no easy answers either), is how do we transition whilst minimizing interim aggression.
Eggs-ack-ly.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:48:46AM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:21 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
[?] Well, those are the practical everyday questions people
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote: like Juan refuse to answer and explain the potential workings
That is not how it works =) A few points in no particular order :
a) I am under no obligation to explain anything
b) there are TONS of literature dealing with political philosophy
c) utilitarianism is a joke
d) at any rate, it's aggressors who should be doing the explaining. People who support the state's authority should provide the 'rational' basis for their obey-or-die 'philosophy' Ack.
of to people who might then vote for his nobodys. If you want a vote you have to put it in everyday practical terms. No offense to the Juans's out there, just saying. No problem. I just explained why it's a mistake to demand explanations =P Problem is, we're not starting from a blank slate.
We have aggressors, carrying guns, extorting money, as our starting point.
What's being asked for (and no, I have no easy answers either), is how do we transition whilst minimizing interim aggression.
And no, neither your nor nobody is obliged to answer that question. There's merely a hope that we might find a sane pathway out of this mess we are collectively in.
Good luck,