Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

pootle

Members
  • Content Count

    2,039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pootle

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran
  1. Slightly OT, but ... Population of London at a guess ~10M, population of NI ~1.7M ... I don'k think I need to do the maths for you.
  2. It will possibly say that that we will see that house prices will rise by double digits next year ... it's unlikely that it will say that and impossible that it would be true ... but having read the shite that they came out with for the past few year I would say that it is still possible that they might say it
  3. That graph shows nicely that prices have been falling in Northern Ireland since the middle of 2007.
  4. Ah, the good old Northern Ireland Thread ... how times have changed. Your edgy, tempestuous thrashing has lulled to a restful dream of a better future ... a future where we live in a world without EAs.
  5. I think I'm going to have to poke my flumping eyes out with knitting needles!
  6. That my toothy friend is a very excellent question. I have much experience of their twerpery. This poor flump has weekly councilling for the mental scars.
  7. Nothing more to say than that!
  8. Anyone know if things are progressing as normal (i.e. all aboard the delusion choo choo!!!) in BSE?
  9. Clegg just quoted on the radio saying that the Conservatives have the clearest mandate and that they should approach him with proposals for electoral reform.
  10. That's probably the most sensible statement posted on this thread
  11. OK, let me be clear for you: If I have something I wish to exchange for something else and the other party wishes to reciprocate the exchange then it is voluntary. If I wish to park in a carpark and to pay for it and the carpark owner is happy for me to park there then it is voluntary. If you read over my posts you will find that I am consistent in this and also in the alternative - that if I do not wish to pay then I park elsewhere. You tried to force fit the analogy until it showed that I had a implicit contract with the government. I refuted this by saying that the equivalent of the parking example would be a random security company coming along and starting to charge. Your analogy is still wrong. I am still incapable of forming an enforecable implicit contract under coercion ... in other words no implicit contract exists. You then change your tack moving from implicit contract to standing and asking how I know if the parking company own the land? Well clearly the government is going to be spending some of it's hard earned cash by creating a DNA database of everyone, then biochipping property with it's owners details and mandating that everyone buys a hand-held reader and all transactions are verified for legitimate ownership before authorisation at which point the STAT (safe transaction added tax) is added. You know my mind? Why bother posting here then? I could as easily have asked if your moral principle was might-is-right. Why shouldn't I ask what moral principles you are starting with? So let me ask you again - what are your moral principles? Or, if you prefer we can skip that and agree that your reply to my clarification question does indeed suggest that your moral system is based on "what the majority says" (and I believe the defence you mounted does indeed suggest this). Your choice! (No coercion here )
  12. STOP MISCONSTRUING THINGS! At no point have I said that I should not pay for entering the carpark. I have said that if I enter the carpark and choose to pay that I do so voluntarily or I leave. All I did in the previous post was point out that the carpark owners have the right to sub-licence the security. My choice remains the same. Your analogy was wrong as I pointed out So your moral framework is "what the majority says"?
  13. So what!?! It is perfectly possible for the two companies to have legitimate claim over the carpark, either because the land is own by the same single entity that operates as two separate companies. Or because one company has subcontracted the security to a second company. Both companies have the right to charge for their services. In this case I would either accept the legitimate conditions or park elsewhere. To keep your analogy to a house purchase correct, the second company (providing the security) would have to be operating on the carpark without having sought or obtained permission from the first company - by merely saying "we provide security around here, now carry on and let us collect our levies." No, I won't accept it because it is not true, however much you assert it. Nope, addressed above. Can you see the difference between choosing to enter a carpark and already being in geographical region? Very good. Top riposte. Sadly, all you have demonstrated is that you are ignoring the body of work that already exists on this topic. My only shame is that you are so dismissive of those people who I quoted. That you call them "some yahoo's [sic]". That you really think the only opinion worth listening to is, of all things, legal opinion. Law does not provide our morality/ethics, it should reflect it, but so often falls far short of the mark. Need I list any of the deeply immoral laws that have been enacted to enslave Africans, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, women and the list goes on. If you bothered to find out more you would find that they refer back to Grotius, Locke, Rousseau and so on whose theories your premise relies on. I've addressed the flaw at the top of this post. As before, the flaw has been addressed. Now after me answering all your questions, how about you answering the question I asked you back in post 174
  14. "It is instructive to inquire why it is that the State, in contrast to the highwayman, invariably surrounds itself with an ideology of legitimacy, why it must indulge in all the hypocrisies that Spooner outlines. The reason is that the highwayman is not a visible, permanent, legal, or legitimate member of society, let alone a member with exalted status. He is always on the run from his victims or from the State itself. But the State, in contrast to a band of highwaymen, is not considered a criminal organization; on the contrary, its minions have generally held the positions of highest status in society. It is a status that allows the State to feed off its victims while making at least most of them support, or at least be resigned to, this exploitative process. In fact, it is precisely the function of the State's ideological minions and allies to explain to the public that the Emperor does indeed have a fine set of clothes. In brief, the ideologists must explain that, while theft by one or more persons or groups is bad and criminal, that when the State engages in such acts, it is not theft but the legitimate and even sanctified act called "taxation." The ideologists must explain that murder by one or more persons or groups is bad and must be punished, but that when the State kills it is not murder but an exalted act known as "war" or "repression of internal subversion." They must explain that while kidnapping or slavery is bad and must be outlawed when done by private individuals or groups, that when the State commits such acts it is not kidnapping or slavery but "conscription"-an act necessary to the public weal and even to the requirements of morality itself. The function of the statist ideologists is to weave the false set of Emperor's clothes, to convince the public of a massive double standard: that when the State commits the gravest of high crimes it is really not doing so, but doing something else that is necessary, proper, vital, and even-in former ages-by divine command. The age-old success of the ideologists of the State is perhaps the most gigantic hoax in the history of mankind." Rothbard - The Ethics of Liberty
  15. Again, the parking analogy is wrong because it is a contracting between two parties while the government stepping in as a third party relies on "by the way, we want some money or we'll stop this contract from proceeding" Because I'm voluntarily contracting with the parking company! They say "this is what we offer" I choose to accept it or find parking elsewhere! The mafia don't give me that choice, they say "ah, you've opened a business, we will send you the invoice for our services" Again, no. I saw what was on offer from the parking company and accepted voluntarily or declined and parked elsewhere. And neither does claiming the existence of a supposed implicit contract make it so. Several times above. As above - the situations are not equivalent. Exactly! The exchange of property is valid without government sanction. The "service" they provide is not needed. A properly conducted exchange would be valid regardless of the government. (Edit to add: just to head you off at the pass, I'm not saying that your scenario as you describe it is a properly conducted exchange!)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.