2015-11-01 23:34 GMT+01:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Consistently applied and effective justice The state doesn't provide justice.
Hence I am upset with it.
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.
What, because law is made by criminals, for criminals? idk why you don't like law. I guess you'd rather grab a horse, a sack, and a rope, and call that justice. Ethical considerations like animal rights should not encode into strict law. Same goes for drugs, sexuality, etc. Because these things are difficult and I am not going to hurt people (punish them) for something that might be fine, depending on how you look at it.
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.
You know, when I answer with a joke it's probably because I couldn't bother to bridge to your level of stupidity. Sorry for letting that out, but compare the Wild West to the Roman Empire, compare African tribes to old Japan. Structured violence can decrease overall violence. If that's beyond you, well, I guess that's why 100% consent is not an option.
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.
I explained in detail why this is. If you didn't get the "costs of enforcement" argument you're allowed to admit it. Hell, you might try providing any argument yourself instead of responding to mine. (to recap: if it costs 100 bucks to enforce a contract, the contract will not at all protect any damage below 100 bucks. Without governance the cost of strict enforcement is huge. You may also be in no position at all to enforce a contract, like when your adversary is more powerful than you)
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'.
You're like a redneck piece of shit or something. To call CERN scammers ... you must be seriously troubled. And, actually, yeah, I think humanity is pretty much nothing but little pet projects. I think bigger and cooler pet projects are practically all we can hope for.
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'?
I know it's hard to reason with undefined variables, but the system was instantiated as "some organization that can generate 'appropriate' political decisions", where I marked "appropriate" such that you might understand it is an undefined variable, that I cannot fill in just like that. It's not the first time you've failed to grasp my meaning, and responded unkindly to the shadows you drew instead. "Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway"
More meaningless rambling. Are you high or something?
Nah, I'm fundamental. If you think the word freedom has a good exact meaning, well, fuck you for keeping it to yourself.
Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets.
LMAO. Mathematics is for counting stuff.
Continuing in the same vein as the CERN comment. Sad.
There you go using criminal as if it means something :)
It means nothing to amoralist nutcases.
Well, at least I don't think I'm the source and means of justice.
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'??
Like, I dunno Juan, I'm really trying here. I thought you were about to start explaining what you think, but here you are, spewing meaningless offense again. I mean, I learned some formal logic, you'd say that's a superset of basic logic. UKGOV (through cie <http://cie.org.uk/>) even certified me for critical thinking which, I think, involved some logic. I mean I got a pretty bad grade, but I think it is because I merely skimmed the book the day before the exam and dedicated my essay to shitting on the BBC and how they're pressured for time in a world with bad journalism and lack specific expertise to discuss complex topics, but whatever.
Rights are defined by government, Are you completely retarded or what.
Doctors say no, Juan says yes, the mystery continues... Did you ever go for a mental checkup? Or did you prefer the criminals keep their scary tentacles away from you?
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.
Poor alternative to admitting natural rights are just propagandaspeak for a proposed core/basic/minimal morality, and adjusting how you think about them.
Ask the mountains thought to have spirits.
That's a poetic license.
Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man.
Fuck you.
I feel your pain, but please direct your frustration towards the mountain. It knows how to help you.