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:

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

[?]

Well, those are the practical everyday questions people
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,