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' Let's say A point a gun at B and then the following dialog ensues : A : I want to buy ice-cream. Give me money or I'll kill you. B : what the fuck? A : I need money, so give me your money. B : are you nuts? A : No, I want ice-cream. How can I can buy ice-cream if I don't have money? B : I don't know. That's not my problem. A : Look I'm being rational. You have to solve my problems. If you don't want to be robed and/or raped and/or killed, YOU have to 'explain' B : why? A : and AND, but BUT WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON?
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