Shiny stuff and designer societies

Lodewijk andré de la porte l at odewijk.nl
Mon Nov 2 12:35:17 PST 2015


2015-11-01 23:34 GMT+01:00 Juan <juan.g71 at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151102/81f0d374/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list