Minimum Wage Rise Will Cause The Moon To Fall From The Sky

[TGP]

Here is a logic puzzle for you -

Slubs are a subset of Nulbs.

Nulbs are black, triangular and 2 foot high.

is the statement

Slubs are yellow, spherical and 145 feet tall.

True or false?

OK, then I misconstrued what you said.

There are some things that are objective.

The rules of logic. The rules of maths. Some physical laws.

Given how they are defined. Then they are objectively correct or incorrect. So if x = y = z then x <> z is incorrect (as I've already stated)......... given how we define = and <>.

However, the point I was willing to make is that you can't use that to claim your morals are correct. Because saying "theft is always immoral" cannot be objectively defined. If I can find instances where a theft is something that most other people, including yourself, accept as moral (such as stealing a terrorists nuke in order to safely dispose of it) then that indicates the predicates of your logic are flawed.

I was insisting that your logic be coherent (that is objectively correct)....... so when you said "All instances of X is immoral" you had to stick to that. You had to accept "All" instances as immoral.

What you wern't able to do was defend that for all instances of X. There are some instances of X that so many people consider moral.......... that you refuse/cannot derfend it in public without looking an a**, so you don't.

Therefore, this suggests that there is a problem with your argument. You are either incorrectly defining X......... or it is not true that X is immoral........ or it is not true that X is immoral in all cases, only in some cases. You cannot defend THOSE propositions.

You TRIED to change the "x is immoral" part, that failed. So you flipped back.

In this case........ the issue is with the "All instances of......" part of the logical statement. I have found some instances where even you consider it moral to do X, as witnessed by your inability to defend those instances as immoral.

Therfore your logic is faulty. If it read "Some instances of X are immoral" it would be fine.........that is in fact the case I am proposing.......... but you cannot defend "All instances of X are immoral". If you do so you look an a** in front of everbody, so you refuse to do so.

This indicates the flaw in your moral system. It leads to conclusions concerning morality even YOU are unwilling to defend, certainly that almost all other observers would consider invalid. Such as declaring Oscar Schindler a "bad" man, or declaring that anyone who "steals" this nuclear device from it's owner in order to disable it is "a bad man". Or stating that "in order to remain "good" the people of london must let this terrorist do whatever he wants with the nuke he legitimately owns".

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

OK, then I misconstrued what you said.

There are some things that are objective.

The rules of logic. The rules of maths. Some physical laws.

Given how they are defined. Then they are objectively correct or incorrect. So if x = y = z then x <> z is incorrect (as I've already stated)......... given how we define = and <>.

However, the point I was willing to make is that you can't use that to claim your morals are correct. Because saying "theft is always immoral" cannot be objectively defined. If I can find instances where a theft is something that most other people, including yourself, accept as moral (such as stealing a terrorists nuke in order to safely dispose of it) then that indicates the predicates of your logic are flawed.

I was insisting that your logic be coherent (that is objectively correct)....... so when you said "All instances of X is immoral" you had to stick to that. You had to accept "All" instances as immoral.

What you wern't able to do was defend that for all instances of X. There are some instances of X that so many people consider moral.......... that you refuse/cannot derfend it in public without looking an a**, so you don't.

Therefore, this suggests that there is a problem with your argument. You are either incorrectly defining X......... or it is not true that X is immoral........ or it is not true that X is immoral in all cases, only in some cases. You cannot defend THOSE propositions.

You TRIED to change the "x is immoral" part, that failed. So you flipped back.

In this case........ the issue is with the "All instances of......" part of the logical statement. I have found some instances where even you consider it moral to do X, as witnessed by your inability to defend those instances as immoral.

Therfore your logic is faulty. If it read "Some instances of X are immoral" it would be fine.........that is in fact the case I am proposing.......... but you cannot defend "All instances of X are immoral". If you do so you look an a** in front of everbody, so you refuse to do so.

This indicates the flaw in your moral system. It leads to conclusions concerning morality even YOU are unwilling to defend, certainly that almost all other observers would consider invalid. Such as declaring Oscar Schindler a "bad" man, or declaring that anyone who "steals" this nuclear device from it's owner in order to disable it is "a bad man". Or stating that "in order to remain "good" the people of london must let this terrorist do whatever he wants with the nuke he legitimately owns".

Yours,

TGP

No mate,

I just got you to admit that morals (in fact anything you want to talk about that takes place in reality) have to be

logical

And

objective.

Now you have to abandon the state because the idea of the state is neither logical nor objectively provable.

[TGP]

Ok, so why are you telling me I am wrong?

Because you refuse to defend the logical outcomes of your morals as correct, and you flip your answers.........

You say.........."All instances of Restricting Freedom are immoral"".........

And I say "So holding a terrorists arm so he may not press a button setting off a nuke killin 5m people is immmoral".......... you slink away without answering. Later you state "restricting freedom is neutral" (possibly in an attempt to deal with this).

You say.........."All instances ofRestricting Freedom is Neutral".........

And I say "So locking Injin up in a cage is not immoral, just neutral".......... you slink away without answering, and still refuse to answer despite being repeatedly prompted for one.

You say.........."All instances of Theft are Neutral"".........

And I say "So if the govt. "steals" your income by taxing it, that is neutral".......... you change your mind to theft being immoral.

You say.........."All instances of Theft are Immoral".........

And I say "So if you steal a nuclear bomb a terrorist owns legitimately but wishes to set off killing 5m people is immoral".......... you slink away without answering.

I also say "So if the people of london are faced with a terrorist who legitimately owns a nuke and wishes to set it off there options are restricted to. A) removing the nuke, making them bad people or remaining good people, but being killed by the terrorist in the morning".......... you slink off without answering.

If your logic gives absurd answers............so absurd that you refuse to defend them........ then that is a clear indication that even you consider your logic wrong. You continually do so. You have amplye opportunity to tell me WHY not preventing the terrorist from setting off the nuke should be moral. You refuse to do so.

You COULD accept those instances. Indicating that you beleive your logic is right.

I'd then dance around the thread making fun of you for a dozen posts over the absurdities to which your logic leads.......... and also point out "Why do you think humans want to subscribe to a moral system in which they can only be good IF they can only be so by being good piles of radioactive dust" ?....... and various other ways of juyst rubbing your absurdity in your face until you cried uncle, or I had enough of it, felt you'd learnbt your lesson and was prepared to move onto discussing your latest idiocy.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Because you refuse to defend the logical outcomes of your morals as correct, and you flip your answers.........

You say.........."All instances of Restricting Freedom are immoral"".........

And I say "So holding a terrorists arm so he may not press a button setting off a nuke killin 5m people is immmoral".......... you slink away without answering. Later you state "restricting freedom is neutral" (possibly in an attempt to deal with this).

You say.........."All instances ofRestricting Freedom is Neutral".........

And I say "So locking Injin up in a cage is not immoral, just neutral".......... you slink away without answering, and still refuse to answer despite being repeatedly prompted for one.

You say.........."All instances of Theft are Neutral"".........

And I say "So if the govt. "steals" your income by taxing it, that is neutral".......... you change your mind to theft being immoral.

You say.........."All instances of Theft are Immoral".........

And I say "So if you steal a nuclear bomb a terrorist owns legitimately but wishes to set off killing 5m people is immoral".......... you slink away without answering.

I also say "So if the people of london are faced with a terrorist who legitimately owns a nuke and wishes to set it off there options are restricted to. A) removing the nuke, making them bad people or remaining good people, but being killed by the terrorist in the morning".......... you slink off without answering.

If your logic gives absurd answers............so absurd that you refuse to defend them........ then that is a clear indication that even you consider your logic wrong. You continually do so. You have amplye opportunity to tell me WHY not preventing the terrorist from setting off the nuke should be moral. You refuse to do so.

You COULD accept those instances. Indicating that you beleive your logic is right.

I'd then dance around the thread making fun of you for a dozen posts over the absurdities to which your logic leads.......... and also point out "Why do you think humans want to subscribe to a moral system in which they can only be good IF they can only be so by being good piles of radioactive dust" ?....... and various other ways of juyst rubbing your absurdity in your face until you cried uncle, or I had enough of it, felt you'd learnbt your lesson and was prepared to move onto discussing your latest idiocy.

Yours,

TGP

Yes, I flip flopped so that you would come to the conclusion that morals have to be logical and objectively defined.

And now you have to give up the state.

[TGP]

Yes, I flip flopped so that you would come to the conclusion that morals have to be logical and objectively defined.

And now you have to give up the state.

No. They have to be logical. Logic, by definition is objectively defined.

However, the predicates you are feeding into your logic are NOT objectively defined.

Look.

If I say "All objects fall into the sky. Balls fall into the sky".

That is logical, the logic involved in that statement is objectively correct.

However the predicates are not objectively defined. There are only subjective definitions of the word "ball".

In this instance the logic is right, but the conclusions you reach with that logic are wrong.

Similarly if I say "All objects are Footballs."

It is logically coherent........ but the pedicates are false. Thats true even if there is only subjective definitions of "football".

Your statement of "All instances of X are immoral"

Fails because the subjective definition of X is wrong. Despite the logic being fine.

This is demonstrated when I show you an instance of X and you cannot defend it as immoral subjectively.

Look............ I can say "Everything Injin says is False. Injin says "Balls fall up to the sky". That is false".

Must you accept that as correct ? All the logic is perfectly objectively correct in that statement.

Or would you say "OK, what if I say "Balls fall to the center of the earth, what now ?"

And ask me to demonstrate that statement is false. If I cannot do so.........you can point to the logic as being correct, but the predicate being wrong. You can say "Although the logic is correct, your subjective definition of "All" or "Injin" is false because the predicate is incorrect.

Why is that so hard to understand ?

You are claiming "The laws of logic are objective, therefore anything I put into those laws is also objective". Thats ********.

"Everything injin says is ********. Injin says black is white, up is down and left is right. They are all false".

There you go. Nice and objectively defined. Completely coherent logic. 100% correct from a logical standpoint.

Now is it TRUE ?

You seem to be claiming, from your own arguments, that because the laws of logic are true that statement above MUST be true.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

BTW........

Have you ever DONE any actual logic ? As in been taught it as a discipline ?

Because I don;t think you quite understand how it works.

Are you sure you understand what you are doing and what the words you say mean ? It might be worth your while to spend 10 minutes on the wiki page for "logic" and another 5 minutes or so on the wiki page for "objective" too while you are at it.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

No. They have to be logical. Logic, by definition is objectively defined.

However, the predicates you are feeding into your logic are NOT objectively defined.

Look.

If I say "All objects fall into the sky. Balls fall into the sky".

That is logical, the logic involved in that statement is objectively correct.

However the predicates are not objectively defined. There are only subjective definitions of the word "ball".

In this instance the logic is right, but the conclusions you reach with that logic are wrong.

Similarly if I say "All objects are Footballs."

It is logically coherent........ but the pedicates are false. Thats true even if there is only subjective definitions of "football".

Your statement of "All instances of X are immoral"

Fails because the subjective definition of X is wrong. Despite the logic being fine.

This is demonstrated when I show you an instance of X and you cannot defend it as immoral subjectively.

Look............ I can say "Everything Injin says is False. Injin says "Balls fall up to the sky". That is false".

Must you accept that as correct ? All the logic is perfectly objectively correct in that statement.

Or would you say "OK, what if I say "Balls fall to the center of the earth, what now ?"

And ask me to demonstrate that statement is false. If I cannot do so.........you can point to the logic as being correct, but the predicate being wrong. You can say "Although the logic is correct, your subjective definition of "All" or "Injin" is false because the predicate is incorrect.

Why is that so hard to understand ?

You are claiming "The laws of logic are objective, therefore anything I put into those laws is also objective". Thats ********.

"Everything injin says is ********. Injin says black is white, up is down and left is right. They are all false".

There you go. Nice and objectively defined. Completely coherent logic. 100% correct from a logical standpoint.

Now is it TRUE ?

You seem to be claiming, from your own arguments, that because the laws of logic are true that statement above MUST be true.

Yours,

TGP

I;'m just throwing your own arguments back at you, TGP.

I relabal what you give me and then throw it back at you.

When you say state, I substitute somethign else.

And then, because it's nonsense, you reject it.

Here are your options

1) Either everything in the real world has to be logical and objective and therefore you have to give up the state.

or

2) Everything is subjective and no one has to be objective or logical, in which case when I say that the state is evil and uneccessary you can't say I am wrong.

Pick one.

Ta.

[Injin]

BTW........

Have you ever DONE any actual logic ? As in been taught it as a discipline ?

Because I don;t think you quite understand how it works.

Are you sure you understand what you are doing and what the words you say mean ? It might be worth your while to spend 10 minutes on the wiki page for "logic" and another 5 minutes or so on the wiki page for "objective" too while you are at it.

Yours,

TGP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.

Source A is authoritative.

Therefore, p is true.

It's wiki link as well - do you see what I did there?

[TGP]

Thinking on it some more........ I find that I have to retract my statement that "i misconstrued what you said" above. I didn't misconstrue what you said at first at all.

You just don't understand what you are saying. Litrerally have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't understand how logic works (you think stateing something logically makes it true), nor what objective means (you seem to think that if you state it as a fact then and only then is it objective).

I assumed I was dealing with a sophisticated poster who understood those concepts and was trying to play with them in a slippery way.......... what I realise now is that I'm dealing with a poster who so fails to understand what they mean such that he can't deal with them as concepts at all.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 31, 2010 by TGP

[Injin]

Thinking on it some more........ I find that I have to retract my statement that "i misconstrued what you said" above. I didn't misconstrue what you said at first at all.

You just don't understand what you are saying. Litrerally have no idea what you are talking about. You don;t understand how logic works, nor what objective means.

I assumed I was dealing with a sophisticated poster who understood thoe concepts and was trying to play with them in a slippery way.......... what I realise now is that I'm dealing with a poster who so fails to understand what they mean that he can't deal with them as concepts at all.

Yours,

TGP

You mean I have won the state debate and this is your only way out?

Sad.

Edit - here it is in all it's glory for you to remember.

The state is a subset of mankind.

Any rule which applies to mankind, also applies to the state in order to be logical, objective and rational.

Ta da.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Injin

[TGP]

You mean I have won the state debate and this is your only way out?

Sad.

No. I'll still continue to debate.........but I must now treat you as a child who doesn;t understand the words he is using, and must take great care to help him understand. If neccessary using baby speak.

Take the definition of "objective" and your definition of "property rights". You claim this definition is objective.

You claim "If you work on raw material you make it your property" that is your definition of property rights as given. You claim that is objective. Objective means "exists in the real world" and is usually taken to mean "universally agreed to exist in the real world" (although that is largely immaterial here).

So.... in order to follow the logical chain.......when soemone works raw materials in the real world it must make it their property.

However, IN the real world.......... it does not........ miners do not own the coal they produce, the mine owners do. The person who owns the land owns the raw materials, whoever works it. Therefore your concept of property rights is not "objective.

Take the definition of "moral" and "objective". You claim the statement that "All taking of others property without their permission is immoral". Objective means "exists in the real world".

Well, this statement is not true in the real world........ people consider it moral if I take a terrorists nuclear device and dispose of it safely. So your "moral" is not objective.

You were mistakenly assuming something along the lines of "Because I beleive it is true, it is objective" (I don;tknow exactly what you were doing here, only that you were doing the wrong thing) and "If I state it logically, because logic is objective the statement must be true".

Both are false statements, and a reference to a dictionary will confirm what I am saying is correct. You are going to need to refer to that dictionary.

Edit - here it is in all it's glory for you to remember.

The state is a subset of mankind.

Any rule which applies to mankind, also applies to the state in order to be logical, objective and rational.

Ta da.

See...... you've done it again......... neither of those statements are objective. Your logic fails in several areas of that statement.

The state is not a subset of mankind. It is an entity created by mankind (or a series of them). Like the entity "logic". It exists solely how humans have contructed it in their minds, and how they wish it operate. "logic" is not a subset of "mankind" either.

Any rule which applies to mankind does not apply to states. Your attempt to say so is not objective, that is not a logical rule that actually applies in reality. It can do so and remain logical, because your first premise was incorrect. It CANNOT do so and be "objectively the case", again, because your first predicate is "objectively incorrect".

None of this applies to rationality. Rationality is the process of arguing on the basis of evidence gathered from the real world. None of the above atements are rational in any way as you haven't referred them, or sought to prove them, by reference to evidence of how the real world actually works.

In order......... you have incorrectly used the words "state", "mankind", "logical", "objective" and "rational".

In order....... your logic failed at the first statement.the second statement and the two sub statement leading off the second statement.

You might as well have written

Ooooga Booga Boooga. I consider my case proven.

You have failed to establish any predicates as correct. You have failed to logically or evidentially demonstrate the predicates you have assumed (but not shown) to be correct.

Jesus christ man, where do we start ?

How about "the state is a subset of mankind"...... it is not. The state is an entity created by manking which does not form part of the "set" mankind. If you drew a venn diagram the circle "state" would not lie entirely within the circle "mankind". The definition of "subset" is a circle that would lie entirely within the circle of the set it is a subset of.

In order to do so........ALL aspects of the state must be a part of "mankind"......... so a law written in the books must be a member of the class "mankind"......... the process of delegating authority must be within the class "mankind" and so on.

Some aspect of the state lay outside the class "mankind" as they are not made up of "humans".............but of thoughts, ideas, documents, buildings, rules and so on which are not "mankind".

To give you an example of what we CAN say

The state is a subset of the class "entitities created by mankind". Like, say, cars.

Or

The state is a subset of the class "non corpreal entities created by mankind". Like, say, contracts or rights.

Or

The state is a subset of the class "non copreal entities created by manking that exist only in the minds of mankind". Like, again, rights or contracts.

But you can't say it's part of the class "mankind"...... that class has attricutes (isHuman, isLiving or hasLived) that the state does not share....... in order to be a subset of a class you must share ALL the attributes of the super-class.

So. If cars "have engines"...... then the subclass of cars, ford cortina's, must all "have engines". if they do not, they are not a subset of the class "car". A state is not a subset of the class "mankind" because it does not share the attribute (isHuman) nor have either of the attributes "isLiving" or "hasLived".

This is going to be a Looooooooooong thread if I have to teach you concepts like "subsets", "classes" and "attributes" one by one. I suspect we are going to have to do all the rules of logic one by one, and a whole load of words that you do not understand.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

No. I'll still continue to debate.........but I must now treat you as a child who doesn;t understand the words he is using, and must take great care to help him understand. If neccessary using baby speak.

Take the definition of "objective" and your definition of "property rights". You claim this definition is objective.

You claim "If you work on raw material you make it your property" that is your definition of property rights as given. You claim that is objective. Objective means "exists in the real world" and is usually taken to mean "universally agreed to exist in the real world" (although that is largely immaterial here).

So.... in order to follow the logical chain.......when soemone works raw materials in the real world it must make it their property.

However, IN the real world.......... it does not........ miners do not own the coal they produce, the mine owners do. The person who owns the land owns the raw materials, whoever works it. Therefore your concept of property rights is not "objective.

Take the definition of "moral" and "objective". You claim the statement that "All taking of others property without their permission is immoral". Objective means "exists in the real world".

Well, this statement is not true in the real world........ people consider it moral if I take a terrorists nuclear device and dispose of it safely. So your "moral" is not objective.

You were mistakenly assuming something along the lines of "Because I beleive it is true, it is objective" (I don;tknow exactly what you were doing here, only that you were doing the wrong thing) and "If I state it logically, because logic is objective the statement must be true".

Both are false statements, and a reference to a dictionary will confirm what I am saying is correct. You are going to need to refer to that dictionary.

See...... you've done it again......... neither of those statements are objective. Your logic fails in several areas of that statement.

The state is not a subset of mankind. It is an entity created by mankind (or a series of them). Like the entity "logic". It exists solely how humans have contructed it in their minds, and how they wish it operate. "logic" is not a subset of "mankind" either.

Any rule which applies to mankind does not apply to states. Your attempt to say so is not objective, that is not a logical rule that actually applies in reality. It can do so and remain logical, because your first premise was incorrect. It CANNOT do so and be "objectively the case", again, because your first predicate is "objectively incorrect".

None of this applies to rationality. Rationality is the process of arguing on the basis of evidence gathered from the real world. None of the above atements are rational in any way as you haven't referred them, or sought to prove them, by reference to evidence of how the real world actually works.

In order......... you have incorrectly used the words "state", "mankind", "logical", "objective" and "rational".

In order....... your logic failed at the first statement.the second statement and the two sub statement leading off the second statement.

You might as well have written

Ooooga Booga Boooga. I consider my case proven.

You have failed to establish any predicates as correct. You have failed to logically or evidentially demonstrate the predicates you have assumed (but not shown) to be correct.

Jesus christ man, where do we start ?

How about "the state is a subset of mankind"...... it is not. The state is an entity created by manking which does not form part of the "set" mankind. If you drew a venn diagram the circle "state" would not lie entirely within the circle "mankind". The definition of "subset" is a circle that would lie entirely within the circle of the set it is a subset of.

In order to do so........ALL aspects of the state must be a part of "mankind"......... so a law written in the books must be a member of the class "mankind"......... the process of delegating authority must be within the class "mankind" and so on.

Some aspect of the state lay outside the class "mankind" as they are not made up of "humans".............but of thoughts, ideas, documents, buildings, rules and so on which are not "mankind".

To give you an example of what we CAN say

The state is a subset of the class "entitities created by mankind". Like, say, cars.

Or

The state is a subset of the class "non corpreal entities created by mankind". Like, say, contracts or rights.

Or

The state is a subset of the class "non copreal entities created by manking that exist only in the minds of mankind". Like, again, rights or contracts.

But you can't say it's part of the class "mankind"...... that class has attricutes (isHuman, isLiving or hasLived) that the state does not share....... in order to be a subset of a class you must share ALL the attributes of the super-class.

So. If cars "have engines"...... then the subclass of cars, ford cortina's, must all "have engines". if they do not, they are not a subset of the class "car". A state is not a subset of the class "mankind" because it does not share the attribute (isHuman) nor have either of the attributes "isLiving" or "hasLived".

This is going to be a Looooooooooong thread if I have to teach you concepts like "subsets", "classes" and "attributes" one by one. I suspect we are going to have to do all the rules of logic one by one, and a whole load of words that you do not understand.

Yours,

TGP

Created by mankind?

Show me, objectively how it is created.

What is objectively, measurably different betwene gordon brown and the next bloke?

Does he weigh tonnes?

Can he drink molten lead?

Shoot laser beams out of his one remaining eye?

What's the difference, factually, between him and the rest of the human race?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Injin

[TGP]

Created by mankind?

Show me, objectively how it is created.

Humans agree to abide by the actions of a state.

They create an entity, they call "the state"....... they agree rules for it's creation and maintenance....... they abide by the rules created.

Much in the same way that "mankind create property rights".

It is the act of the observence of the rules they have agreed that demonstrate those rules have been created.

What is objectively, measurably different betwene gordon brown and the next bloke?

Humans agree he holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK".......... they do not agree that "the next bloke" holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK".

Does he weigh tonnes?

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

Can he drink molten lead?

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

Shoot laser beams out of his one remaining eye?

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

What's the difference, factually, between him and the rest of the human race?

The majority of the humans within the area called the UK agree he holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK". They do not agree that all other members of the human race hold that office.

My turn............

How do we know that an object is the property of Injin ? Do laser beams shoot out of it's orifices ? Does every atom of it come stamped with "property of injin" ? Is there a special way in which the atoms are configured that objectively define that object as being the "proprty of injin" ?

In what sense is your toaster "objectively" your toaster ?

In what sense can you calim it is.......... and I claim it isn't.......... and that dispute can be settled to both our satisfations that "it is indeed injins toaster" ?

If that can't be settled. How does a thing such as "injin's property rights over this toaster" objectively exist ?

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 31, 2010 by TGP

[Injin]

Humans agree to abide by the actions of a state.

They create an entity, they call "the state"....... they agree rules for it's creation and maintenance....... they abide by the rules created.

Much in the same way that "mankind create property rights".

It is the act of the observence of the rules they have agreed that demonstrate those rules have been created.

Humans agree he holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK".......... they do not agree that "the next bloke" holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK".

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

No. That is not an attribute of the class "Prime Minister of the UK"

The majority of the humans within the area called the UK agree he holds an office called "Prime Minister of the UK". They do not agree that all other members of the human race hold that office.

My turn............

How do we know that an object is the property of Injin ? Do laser beams shoot out of it's orifices ? Does every atom of it come stamped with "property of injin" ? Is there a special way in which the atoms are configured that objectively define that object as being the "proprty of injin" ?

In what sense is your toaster "objectively" your toaster ?

In what sense can you calim it is.......... and I claim it isn't.......... and that dispute can be settled to both our satisfations that "it is indeed injins toaster" ?

If that can't be settled. How does a thing such as "injin's property rights over this toaster" objectively exist ?

Yours,

TGP

TGP, your basic premise is that people can create classes of humans with different abilities than other humans and that means anything.

It's illogical, fails experimentation. the real world says "no." you can claim that "PM of the united kingdom" is a special case of humans - but wheres your proof?

Just admit there is no logical, rational or empirical basis for the things you claim already. People can agree about it all day, every day it doesn't matter - they are logically, factually and empirically wrong.

Ta.

[TGP]

TGP, your basic premise is that people can create classes of humans with different abilities than other humans and that means anything.

No that is not the basic premise. The basic premise is that people create offices. They delegate authority to those offices to act on their behalf. They then choose the people to fill those offices.

As you in your utopia may create the office of guard. Delegate authority to that office to watch over you while you sleep and then choose a person to hold that office.

It's illogical, fails experimentation.

back to babyspeak again ? sigh. No it is not illogical. You have failed to show any error in logic. It does not fail experiment, as you have not conducted one. Finally, it is not the first due to the second because logic is a seperate concept from experimentation. Big understanding of concepts FAIL.

the real world says "no." you can claim that "PM of the united kingdom" is a special case of humans - but wheres your proof?

how does the real world say no ? Go into the street. Ask 100 people if gb is the pm of the uk. I'll think you'll find the real world says yes. Show me the experiment you conducted where the result was different.

SHOULD the real world say no.... And a majority do not recognize that office, then by my definition he would not be pm.

Just admit there is no logical, rational or empirical basis for the things you claim already.

No my claims are logical (th3ey exist within a correct logical framework). They are rational (I can point to evidence they are correct) they are empirical (you can conduct tests over whether they are correct and receive a positive result).

It is your claims that are nither rational nor empirical (although they are logical in that they exist within a logical framework, it is only the predicates of that framework that are incorrect).

People can agree about it all day, every day it doesn't matter - they are logically, factually and empirically wrong.

How do you know they are logically wrong ? If what they say exists in a coherent logical framework ?

How do you know they are empirically wrong, when an empirical tetst would indicate that they are right to beleive that.

How do you know they are factuially wrong........ when an alanlysis of the facts as they actually exist (not how you would wish them to exist) shows there is an office called PM of the UK and GB holds it ?

I notice........also....... you are ignoring my questions and refusing to answer. I can only take this to mean that you do not have an answer. If you wish to dispute that.......please answer them. I refer to the questions from the last post asking you to justify something being your property in the way I am justifying, at your request, GB being PM.

Ta.

Ta back...........IF you answer my Q's as I answer yours.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 31, 2010 by TGP

[Injin]

No that is not the basic premise. The basic premise is that people create offices. They delegate authority to those offices to act on their behalf. They then choose the people to fill those offices.

As you in your utopia may create the office of guard. Delegate authority to that office to watch over you while you sleep and then choose a person to hold that office.

back to babyspeak again ? sigh. No it is not illogical. You have failed to show any error in logic. It does not fail experiment, as you have not conducted one. Finally, it is not the first due to the second because logic is a seperate concept from experimentation. Big understanding of concepts FAIL.

how does the real world say no ? Go into the street. Ask 100 people if gb is the pm of the uk. I'll think you'll find the real world says yes. Show me the experiment you conducted where the result was different.

SHOULD the real world say no.... And a majority do not recognize that office, then by my definition he would not be pm.

No my claims are logical (th3ey exist within a correct logical framework). They are rational (I can point to evidence they are correct) they are empirical (you can conduct tests over whether they are correct and receive a positive result).

It is your claims that are nither rational nor empirical (although they are logical in that they exist within a logical framework, it is only the predicates of that framework that are incorrect).

How do you know they are logically wrong ? If what they say exists in a coherent logical framework ?

How do you know they are empirically wrong, when an empirical tetst would indicate that they are right to beleive that.

How do you know they are factuially wrong........ when an alanlysis of the facts as they actually exist (not how you would wish them to exist) shows there is an office called PM of the UK and GB holds it ?

I notice........also....... you are ignoring my questions and refusing to answer. I can only take this to mean that you do not have an answer. If you wish to dispute that.......please answer them. I refer to the questions from the last post asking you to justify something being your property in the way I am justifying, at your request, GB being PM.

Ta back...........IF you answer my Q's as I answer yours.

Yours,

TGP

Your basic premise is that if some people decide that other people have special, magical powers, then it happens.

Crap.

Agreement against the laws of physics doesn't create anything, it is simply incorrect.

[Injin]

Oh yes, you are also claiming that people can "give away" their abilities.

Nope. That can't happen either.

You want to have "logical framework" that excludes some items that are actually of he same kind, simply because it's inconvenient to your ideology. You want the people "in the state" to be able to have opposite properties than everyone else, or even opposite to themselves when not at work.

There is no basis for this - sure you can do it, but you can't say it makes any sense, can't say it's logical, can't say it is sane.

[TGP]

Your basic premise is that if some people decide that other people have special, magical powers, then it happens.

No. It is that if people delegate authority to act on their behalf to an office....... then people who hold that office can carry out those delegated powers.

What is "magical" about such delegation ?

Crap.

In your anarchist utopia........ can your guard not ensure your personal safety while you sleep because "that would give him special, magical powers" ?

Agreement against the laws of physics doesn't create anything, it is simply incorrect.

Please demonstrate where the laws of physics describe anything that you consider valid........ or rule out any of the things I consider valid.

I look forward to your reply on that one. If only because I suspect you understand the laws of physics even less well than you understand elementary logic and the syntax of the english language.

Oh yes, you are also claiming that people can "give away" their abilities.

Nope. That can't happen either.

First, I am not claiming they "give them away"......... if you delegate a guard authority to protect your person or possessions, have you "given away" your own right to protect your person/possessions by doing so ?

Second, I disagree that they can't delegate things like this......... in your anarchist utopia, can you not delegate a guard authority to be on your property, and exercise your right to defence of your person/possessions on your behalf ?

You want to have "logical framework" that excludes some items that are actually of he same kind, simply because it's inconvenient to your ideology. You want the people "in the state" to be able to have opposite properties than everyone else, or even opposite to themselves when not at work.

No, not opposite.

Look, you have a right to defend your property in your anarchist utopia. Other people do not have a right (presumably) to arbitarily decide THEY will start doing what they will with your property. YOU decide that. Another person cannot decide "Injin's mum cannot access the sock" or "A stranger can access the sock" or "this person can strike injin (in a bit of anarchist bondage play)" and "that person cannot do so". That is your decision.

However, when you delegate that authority to a guard he possesses an attribute "ability to arbitrate on the use of injins property, as properly delegated" that he did not have before you delegated it to him. While you are sleeping he can make those decision within the contractual framework outlined.

Previously, he didn't have a right to prevent people taking your sock of gold. Maybe your mum was borrowing it. Maybe a thief was taking it. Maybe your wife was going to take some coins out of it to buy some goods. He didn't, previously, have a right to prevent those actions. It was not his sock. Previously he didn;t have a right to stop people striking you, or allow others to do so, it was solely your right to decide.

Once you delegate to him your authority over your sock/your person whilst asleep ..... by enterring a contract that says "While I sleep, you may allow these people to access my sock. Everyone else should be prevented from doing so. This person may strike me, but others may not" you gave him a "magical, special power" in your words he did not previously posess.......... and that he will no longer posses later in the night when he clocks off and the other guard you are employing clocks on.... that he will no longer posses outside the terms of that contract (i.e. when you are awake perhaps).

Are you saying thats invalid ? That if you are asleep....... then there is noone with a right to decide over your sock of gold........ and so you are effectively defenceless against theft while sleeping ? Or that if your wife gives you a playful spank whilst asleep someone has a right to shun her as violent ?

That, ultimately, everything you own is just up for grabs the moment you are unconcious ? That you aren't allowewd to enter a contract to hire guards as that is "creating magical, special powers" ?

AND.............Still not answering MY questions I see.......... can't do so I assume........ Isn't it interesting when people are so full of sh*t that they can't defend their opinions ? Or so impolite as to ask a request of another, see that satisfied....... but refuse to answer a resciprical request ? Bad Manners that. If your anarchist utopia is full of people like you it's going to be a F*****g hell hole.

There is no basis for this - sure you can do it, but you can't say it makes any sense, can't say it's logical, can't say it is sane.

I think you'll find I am saying it's sane. I am saying it makes sense. I am saying it's logical.

I think you'll also find.........in stark contrast to you......... I offer arguments and analogies to back my case. I don't just state it as though it is true and DEMAND the other person accept it with no further discussion. I explain why I consider it true, I am willing to enter a two-way debate on the topic of my opinions in the way you appear not to be willing to do so with yours.

Your method of saying "Thats the case. Now I refuse to talk about it" is frankly the one that doesn't make sense....... if it's the case surely you can defend it against a few simple questions ? If not, if you refuse to answer those questions for fear of how they'd make you look a fool, then in what sense do even YOU consider your arguments good ?

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

No. It is that if people delegate authority to act on their behalf to an office....... then people who hold that office can carry out those delegated powers.

What is "magical" about such delegation ?

No, the argument is that people can allocate someone else to steal and it's not going to be stekling.

That you can allocate someone else as a kidnapper and it's not kidnapping. Somehow there is an osmosis which changes the nature of what's going on simply by wishing it so.

In your anarchist utopia........ can your guard not ensure your personal safety while you sleep because "that would give him special, magical powers" ?

Course you can. What's your point?

You don't set a guard and then say you have no longer any power to guard yourself though, do you?

This scenario also has nothing whatsoever to do with a state.

Please demonstrate where the laws of physics describe anything that you consider valid........ or rule out any of the things I consider valid.

I look forward to your reply on that one. If only because I suspect you understand the laws of physics even less well than you understand elementary logic and the syntax of the english language.

First, I am not claiming they "give them away"......... if you delegate a guard authority to protect your person or possessions, have you "given away" your own right to protect your person/possessions by doing so ?

According to you, yes. If you appoint a state, you have no right to protect yourself against that state.

Do you get how mental an idea it is yet?

Second, I disagree that they can't delegate things like this......... in your anarchist utopia, can you not delegate a guard authority to be on your property, and exercise your right to defence of your person/possessions on your behalf ?

You can't delegate a thief and claim he isn't stealing - that's what I am saying.

No, not opposite.

Look, you have a right to defend your property in your anarchist utopia. Other people do not have a right (presumably) to arbitarily decide THEY will start doing what they will with your property. YOU decide that. Another person cannot decide "Injin's mum cannot access the sock" or "A stranger can access the sock" or "this person can strike injin (in a bit of anarchist bondage play)" and "that person cannot do so". That is your decision.

However, when you delegate that authority to a guard he possesses an attribute "ability to arbitrate on the use of injins property, as properly delegated" that he did not have before you delegated it to him. While you are sleeping he can make those decision within the contractual framework outlined.

Previously, he didn't have a right to prevent people taking your sock of gold. Maybe your mum was borrowing it. Maybe a thief was taking it. Maybe your wife was going to take some coins out of it to buy some goods. He didn't, previously, have a right to prevent those actions. It was not his sock. Previously he didn;t have a right to stop people striking you, or allow others to do so, it was solely your right to decide.

Once you delegate to him your authority over your sock/your person whilst asleep ..... by enterring a contract that says "While I sleep, you may allow these people to access my sock. Everyone else should be prevented from doing so. This person may strike me, but others may not" you gave him a "magical, special power" in your words he did not previously posess.......... and that he will no longer posses later in the night when he clocks off and the other guard you are employing clocks on.... that he will no longer posses outside the terms of that contract (i.e. when you are awake perhaps).

Are you saying thats invalid ? That if you are asleep....... then there is noone with a right to decide over your sock of gold........ and so you are effectively defenceless against theft while sleeping ? Or that if your wife gives you a playful spank whilst asleep someone has a right to shun her as violent ?

That, ultimately, everything you own is just up for grabs the moment you are unconcious ? That you aren't allowewd to enter a contract to hire guards as that is "creating magical, special powers" ?

AND.............Still not answering MY questions I see.......... can't do so I assume........ Isn't it interesting when people are so full of sh*t that they can't defend their opinions ? Or so impolite as to ask a request of another, see that satisfied....... but refuse to answer a resciprical request ? Bad Manners that. If your anarchist utopia is full of people like you it's going to be a F*****g hell hole.

I think you'll find I am saying it's sane. I am saying it makes sense. I am saying it's logical.

I think you'll also find.........in stark contrast to you......... I offer arguments and analogies to back my case. I don't just state it as though it is true and DEMAND the other person accept it with no further discussion. I explain why I consider it true, I am willing to enter a two-way debate on the topic of my opinions in the way you appear not to be willing to do so with yours.

Your method of saying "Thats the case. Now I refuse to talk about it" is frankly the one that doesn't make sense....... if it's the case surely you can defend it against a few simple questions ? If not, if you refuse to answer those questions for fear of how they'd make you look a fool, then in what sense do even YOU consider your arguments good ?

Yours,

TGP

For some reaosn you are saying the state is like a guard I have appionted to look after me.

Pish.

They are thieves, liars, killers and haven't been appointed by anyone. They just like to say they have.

You also can't say that something both is x and isn't x and be logical.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Injin

[Injin]

i'm also still waiting to an answer on this point -

Here are your options

1) Either everything in the real world has to be logical and objective and therefore you have to give up the state.

or

2) Everything is subjective and no one has to be objective or logical, in which case when I say that the state is evil and uneccessary you can't say I am wrong.

Pick one.

Either everything is subject to logic and evidence - including the state, or you can have exceptions, in whcih case I am havign one and saying the state is evil. Pick one, either way you have to admit the state is illogical and evil.

[TGP]

No, the argument is that people can allocate someone else to steal and it's not going to be stekling.

That isn't the argument.

That you can allocate someone else as a kidnapper and it's not kidnapping. Somehow there is an osmosis which changes the nature of what's going on simply by wishing it so.

No. You cannot delegate an authority to kidnap. You can delegate an authority to protect your property, for example.

Course you can. What's your point?

That such delegation is not magically creating special powers.

You don't set a guard and then say you have no longer any power to guard yourself though, do you?

Surely you can if you want ........ but no, thats not generally what people do. And it's not what they do through states either. You still have a right of self-defence do you not ? There you go then.

This scenario also has nothing whatsoever to do with a state.

Yes it does. Your question was "How can a person have powers other people do not have ?". This is an answer to that question. By delegation.

Are you now accepting that people can have powers other people do not have if those powers are properly delegated to them, you are just arguing over wherther this is proper delegation ?

Then fine. Say so. Accept that these are not magical powers........ they are non-magical ones....... but you now wish to argue over whether they are properly delegated or not.

Your the one who set up this absurd situation of calling them magical, not me. I made no such absurd claim. If you want to back off from that......... and start arguing a different point...... then do so. Accept that they aren't magical, and move on to saying "They are not properly delegated".

According to you, yes. If you appoint a state, you have no right to protect yourself against that state.

Where did I say that ? You have all types of rights to protect yourself against a state. They are not unlimited rights....... but then again no rights are......... you do not have unlimited rights to defend yourself against a person by, say, nuking the city he lives in.

You do have rights to defend yourself against a state. Most particularly, where that states actions are not legal.

Do you get how mental an idea it is yet?

Lol. The guy who told me that "If you stop a person setting off a nuke by removing the nuke that he lawfully owns you are a bad person" is telling me I'M mental ?

The person who stated that restricting someones freedom was always neutral........ even if that restriction was him caging you for life without your permission........ that by doing so he wasn't good or bad, just neutral.........he's the one telling me I'm mental ?

The one who thinks "if an argument is logically consistent it is objectively true" ....... he's the one stating I'm mental ?

The guy who JUST SAID that delegating authority to someone "breaks the laws of physics" ..... he's telling me I'm mental.

Do I need to go on. If a nutter calls you a nutter........ well, it goes some way to proving your sane doesn't it ? If he's saying "You're mad......because you do not share my delusion that aliens rule the world". As far as I can see thats a pretty good indicator that you are not stark staring mad yourself.

My system leads to outcomes the vast majority are willing to accept, and that they regard as benefifical to them. Allowing them to do so is not mental. It is allowing them the lattitude to protect themselves and their families properly against the kind of evils the people of the world can throw at them........ including the kind of evils you seem to think they have no right to protect themselves against (like guys with legally owned nukes).

You can't delegate a thief and claim he isn't stealing - that's what I am saying.

I am not saying you can. YOU asked by what rationale GB is Prime Minister. I provided it. You're now onto something else.

For some reaosn you are saying the state is like a guard I have appionted to look after me.

Pish.

No. I am saying it is like a guard that the majority of the people of the UK have appointed to protect the whole UK. They did so by majority vote.

You are free to reject the whole deal by leaving you know. Go and live in Somalia..... where there is no such protection of the area........ see if your standard of living improves.

I'll be sad to see the report on the news of you being found in a gutter with your throat cut, but I won't stop you from giving it a go over there.

Edited March 31, 2010 by TGP

[TGP]

They are thieves, liars, killers and haven't been appointed by anyone. They just like to say they have.

So you say. You have provided no arguments to support that. None at all....... and you never do. You JUST say it. When I ask questions designed to probe this, you ignore them.

I can only assume that you are utterly unable to answer those questions without looking like a complete idiot...... and in full knowledge of this fact you do not.

I answer your questions and, so far, you've failed to catch me out looking like an idiot once. Everything is consistent. Everything accords with reality. Everything has a rational argument to back it up. We have got to no circumstances yet where I must (for example) tell you that you're a bad man if you take a nuke away from a guy willing to use it to kill 5m people. You just got red-handedly caught saying just that (and clammed upo and refused to talk about it anymore immediately afterwards).

You also can't say that something both is x and isn't x and be logical.

Thats exactly correct. Show me where I've said something is x and also not x.

I've seen you do it at least twice....... completely red-handed......... and probably about another dozen times, where you clammed up and refused to speak more on the matter and so did not allow me to make it blatantly red-handed.

Still no answer to my questions on property rights ? Sigh. Are they REALLY so UTTERLY indefensible that you are unwilling to even attempt a defence of them ? Poor, sad, Injin......... doesn't even have enough confidence that what he believes is right to talk about it. Despite CLAIMING such confidence again and again.

There are none so mute as those who will not argue.

Perhaps I can throw another questions out ther again and see if it gets a bite.......

If a man legitimately owns a nuke. If he is going to let it off in london. Does taking the nuke away from him make a person a "bad person" because of that act ? Is the choice of the people of london REALLY reduced to "be bad people" or "be good piles of radioactive dust" ?

By what right do you stop him letting off the nuke......... if use of force to stop him is "use of violence" and immoral....... and taking away his property is "theft" and immoral ?

Still consider Oscar Schindler a bad man ?

Why not just answer some of my questions ? Utterly cr*pping yourself at what a fool they make you look is all I can assume.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

That isn't the argument.

No. You cannot delegate an authority to kidnap. You can delegate an authority to protect your property, for example.

So the state is invalid.

Cheers.

That such delegation is not magically creating special powers.

So the taxman is a thief. Gotcha.

Surely you can if you want ........ but no, thats not generally what people do. And it's not what they do through states either. You still have a right of self-defence do you not ? There you go then.

Not against the taxman, no. Nor the police.

Yes it does. Your question was "How can a person have powers other people do not have ?". This is an answer to that question. By delegation.

Are you now accepting that people can have powers other people do not have if those powers are properly delegated to them, you are just arguing over wherther this is proper delegation ?

Then fine. Say so. Accept that these are not magical powers........ they are non-magical ones....... but you now wish to argue over whether they are properly delegated or not.

Your the one who set up this absurd situation of calling them magical, not me. I made no such absurd claim. If you want to back off from that......... and start arguing a different point...... then do so. Accept that they aren't magical, and move on to saying "They are not properly delegated".

I have never delegated anything to anyone.

So the statists will leave me alone?

Where did I say that ? You have all types of rights to protect yourself against a state. They are not unlimited rights....... but then again no rights are......... you do not have unlimited rights to defend yourself against a person by, say, nuking the city he lives in.

You do have rights to defend yourself against a state. Most particularly, where that states actions are not legal.

All states actions are illegal.

Lol. The guy who told me that "If you stop a person setting off a nuke by removing the nuke that he lawfully owns you are a bad person" is telling me I'M mental ?

The person who stated that restricting someones freedom was always neutral........ even if that restriction was him caging you for life without your permission........ that by doing so he wasn't good or bad, just neutral.........he's the one telling me I'm mental ?

The one who thinks "if an argument is logically consistent it is objectively true" ....... he's the one stating I'm mental ?

The guy who JUST SAID that delegating authority to someone "breaks the laws of physics" ..... he's telling me I'm mental.

Do I need to go on. If a nutter calls you a nutter........ well, it goes some way to proving your sane doesn't it ? If he's saying "You're mad......because you do not share my delusion that aliens rule the world". As far as I can see thats a pretty good indicator that you are not stark staring mad yourself.

My system leads to outcomes the vast majority are willing to accept, and that they regard as benefifical to them. Allowing them to do so is not mental. It is allowing them the lattitude to protect themselves and their families properly against the kind of evils the people of the world can throw at them........ including the kind of evils you seem to think they have no right to protect themselves against (like guys with legally owned nukes).

it doesn't matter how many peopel think it's good.

Whether it is good or isn't is found by looking at the facts and evidence. Opinion, even mass opinion doesn't mean anything in the face of facts.

I am not saying you can. YOU asked by what rationale GB is Prime Minister. I provided it. You're now onto something else.

I neer asked any such thing - i asked what is special about him that you are calling him prime minsiter.

Wel, what is?

Looks like any other bloke to me.

No. I am saying it is like a guard that the majority of the people of the UK have appointed to protect the whole UK. They did so by majority vote.

And I am asking you for evidence that the UK exists.

Got any?

You are free to reject the whole deal by leaving you know. Go and live in Somalia..... where there is no such protection of the area........ see if your standard of living improves.

I'll be sad to see the report on the news of you being found in a gutter with your throat cut, but I won't stop you from giving it a go over there.

leaving where?

I only see an indivisible universe. There is nowhere to leave and nowhere to go to.

I also see lots fo ******wits who believe nonsense who will attack me for not going along with them.

You are one.

Why shouldn't I defend myself against you with all the force I can muster?

[TGP]

So the state is invalid.

Cheers.

No the state is valid. Your statement that what the state does amounts to kidnapping is invalid.

You really are in the habit of cocking up your logic immensely aren't you ?

I'll take the "cheers" as being a thank you for pointing out the flaw in your logic.

So the taxman is a thief. Gotcha.

Nope.

Not against the taxman, no. Nor the police.

Yes you do. If the police turn up and try to beat you to a bloody pulp for no reason........ and you defned yourself. As long as there is good evidence of that all you'll be fine.

You may not have all the rights you want, but this doesn't mean you have no rights at all.

C'mon man. Work oin that logic. You've got it in you to do this stuff properly, you've just got to work a bit harder on it.

I have never delegated anything to anyone.

I would imagine that you haven't. Given the setup of a state this doesn't matter.

Other people have delegated authority, and on the basis of that the state can act against you.

Just as you delegate your authority to a guard......... and he can act against a thief............ even though the thief delegated him no authority to do any such thing.

So the statists will leave me alone?

Yes and No.

Providing you meet your responsibilities in terms of keeping within the law, they'll leave you alone.

If you fail to do so, they won't.

All states actions are illegal.

Lol. "Illegal" ?

Go on then........ without reference to a state define "illegal". Lol.

Whatsmore, "illegal" means they broke the law........ please show me where every action by a state (Not just one. You claimed All) violate that law as it is written.

it doesn't matter how many peopel think it's good.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

If everybody in the Uk thinsk it's good to have a nuclear deterrant........ and one man disagrees....... then it DOES matter how many people think it is good, bedcause the UK WILL HAVE that nuclear deterrent.

Whether it is good or isn't is found by looking at the facts and evidence. Opinion, even mass opinion doesn't mean anything in the face of facts.

I see. You stated that a man "stealing" was doing a bad deed, there were no exceptions allowed

If we have a man that steals anothers legitimately owned nuke......... where that man has announced publicly that he will set it off and kill 5m on Monday......... what do the "facts and evidence" show about whether the man who prevents that with a "theft" is good or bad ?

If you say it's bad.......... and everyone else in the country ways it was a good deed.......... who is right, ultimately ?

If your logic says it';s a bad deed......... and their logic says it's a good deed....... whose logic is valid ?

In a world where "good" and "bad" are defined by the attitudes of people to that person, then the majority going for "good" make it "good" so long as their logic is valid.

In your anarchist utopia......... if a man does a deed you consider "bad", and so shun him.......... and every other anarchist considers "good" and throws him parties with banners like "the goodest man in the world".......... and an independent observer comes along talks to both, and finds that both have a logically coherent argument for their view.

What should he decide about whether that man was a good or a bad man ?

[TGP]

I neer asked any such thing - i asked what is special about him that you are calling him prime minsiter.

Wel, what is?

Looks like any other bloke to me.

I told you. He has had an office called "prime minister" bestowed upon him with the assent of the majority of the population. He "is" prime minister by virtue of the fact that when you ask people "Is he the prime minister" almost all of them say yes.

Look. If you tell me "Something with 4 wheels is not a car, it is a motorbike".

And so I go into the street.......... I spend hours pointing at 4-wheeled vehicles and asking people what they are and they say "car" or "van" or "truck" but never motorbike........... and then I spend hours pointing at 2-wheeled vehicles and they answer "scooter" or "motorbike".

Who is right ? The vast majority who agree a car is a car, and a motorbike is a motorbike ? Or you........ with your insane idea that the labels are reversed ?

Whether an object deserves a label assigned to it is a matter of majority assent. If the majority say it deserves that label, it is so.

The lone nutter wandering round the shopping cnetre swigging special brew with his **** hanging out his trousers doesn't get to decide otherwise.

And, of course, if the majority DO start saying "things with 4-wheels are motorbikes" then that is the case.

It is on this basis "Gordon Brown is Prime Minister".

And I am asking you for evidence that the UK exists.

Got any?

Got any that property rights exist ? You maintain they do. I ask you for it.......... you mumble something and go haring off on another tangent ignoring my question.

For every piece of evidence you consider valid for that assertion......... I will provide an equally valid piece of evidence for my assertion.

I would like to do this another way. But I've found you have a stupid habit of saying "My b*llocks is evidence, but your evidence is b*llocks". I can ONLY cope with this by asking what you consider valid for something you support, and providing an equivalent piece of evidence.

THAT way, as you originally proposed the evidence as valid, you can't turn round later and say it's B*llocks.

I'd LIKE to have a normal conversation with you about this. It's your insistence on all sorts of crazy cr*p that has forced me to this impasse. You point to a man building a house as "evidence of property rights" (as you did before) and I'll point to a man collecting taxes....... and so on, all down the line.

leaving where?

I only see an indivisible universe. There is nowhere to leave and nowhere to go to.

I see. In that case you can't consider the govt. as a thief. If you see an indivisible universe there is no "my stuff" for the government to take. Therefore they cannot be a thief. There is only stuff. If there is no division between "objects Injin owns" and everything else...... that can be no violating of your rights by moving stuff about. You don't own anything, therefore they can't steal it from you.

If you wish to introduce a division........and say "this is my stuff, and if they take it they are thieves"......... then it is EXACTLY that kind of division, supported as well by evidence as that division is, that divides the UK and Somalia. Where your thief argument falls down is on other logic, not the correct conclusion that the world can be divided by divisions human agree are divisions.

As I said above....... propose what you consider valid evidence for your divisions of the universe, and I will provide equivalent evidence for my divisions.

I also see lots fo ******wits who believe nonsense who will attack me for not going along with them.

You are one.

Why shouldn't I defend myself against you with all the force I can muster?

Well........ what do you want ? The moral answer ? The realist answer ?

The moral answer is ........ because they are only taking what is their due for services they have provided, and which you assent to by remaining in the geographic area for which they are provided (yep, we're back to the car parking space).

The realist answer is....... (and this one is why I assume you actually pay your taxes)......... they can muster more force than you.

It is justified upon the moral case. Failure to accept that case will put you before 12 peers chosen entirely at random, people just like you. It is they who will decide if your reason for rejection of that case is valid or not. If they do not, a penalty will be levied. If that penalty is not paid by you voluntarily force will be applied in order to put you in a place where your freedom is restricted for a specified time as punishment.

Should you persuade those 12 ordinary people that this is entirely immoral and they agree..........you will be free to go, and you will not be excpected to pay j*ck sh*t.

I wish you the best of luck in that endevour. You will need it.

Yours,

TGP