sjw wrote:You have a stunning lack of imagination if you think I am lying.
blackacidlizzard wrote:Nearly everything you've posted here indicates that you would be quite capable of reading anything which does not line up exactly with your current worldview ...
Francois Tremblay wrote:It is a fact that you have lied.
sjw wrote:You have evidently completely lost the ability to deeply question your own cultish beliefs.
tism wrote:sjw wrote:You have evidently completely lost the ability to deeply question your own cultish beliefs.
This would be funny if you knew how many times Franc has changed his beliefs in the last few years. He apparently *does* question them from time to time.
sjw wrote:I spoke too vaguely there, sorry -- for me government is the "law of the land", and only the owner of the land has the prerogative to make the laws.
sjw wrote:So in this case, only the bar owner can make that law, unless he had voluntarily agreed with nearby landowners to form a common pact on that issue. Why might a bar owner do this? Perhaps he wants to subscribe to the common police force, the sidewalks, the roads, etc. If he doesn't like this, he can go beyond the edge of the town and set up his bar and do what he wants.
. . .
I think we need to keep the realm of truth and the realm of popular opinion quite separate in our minds. We have to care far more about the former than the latter.
sjw wrote:Bones, you have good questions, but don't confuse your being vague about what I mean with what I mean actually being vague. I can't shove everything I think into a forum posts, sorry.
sjw wrote:But to answer a few of your questions:
- No, the owner can't make a law that lets him violate natural rights. The basis of law is natural rights (consent), it can't be used to subvert them. If he does, then anyone can legitimately come after him.
sjw wrote:- So the only thing that is not gray is your philosophy that everything absolutely must be? That is untenable logic. Things are confused and gray when people don't see the truth. Which is not to say that all problems are trivial. Far from it. It's fantastically difficult to land a rocket on the moon. Yet with effort and precision, the path becomes clear.
sjw wrote: - The issue of running out of land is a complex and important one, but it is far enough in the future that there's no reason to worry about it now. The fact is that much land is owned/controlled without having been justly acquired/held in the first place. First and foremost on this list is wild land we are prevented from using by the government. I read once that all of mankind's current food/living requirements could in principle be met by Australia, if the land were productively converted and used (obviously that would require new technology). Further, just because you own land doesn't give you dictatorial use of it, e.g., you must provide natural egress if necessary to surrounding inhabitants. I can't list all the qualifications here, but the principle is that you can't violate someone's natural rights (such as their right to travel from point A to point B).
sjw wrote:- The purpose of principles is to answer questions. If you grasp the principles, you can answer the questions yourself. Until you do you must ask questions until you either grasp or reject them. So yes, you might have more and more questions, to a point, to the point where you either understand or reject what I'm saying.
Bones wrote:Thanks, I know you can't shove everything into forum posts. That was kind of what I was getting at. I am under the impression that if I am to continue to propose problems that your philosophy does not cover, you will be forced to continue to expand it as you have. If you truly see the "truth" and have a certain set of principles that could be applied to any set of given facts to create a clear and fair (by whatever your definition may be) outcome, then perhaps you can write a treatise on that matter. This way I could see your entire philosophy before making comments, and I think that would be more efficient than this bit by bit, q&a method that we have going on. What I mean is that you can write out all your principles, and then when an issue comes up, you can simply point to one of your principles and explain how this would be resolved under that principle.
Like I said before, I think that this is a very naive way to address problems. It assumes that everything is going to fit into one of your preconceived principles of government.
I think that the purpose of principles is to attempt to be consistent with answers to similar but different questions and limit judgment to what has been previously decided. Things change and principles become outdated. I prefer not to limit myself. You can follow your principles if you want--just look around at the real world every once in a while to see where they are leading you.
sjw wrote:Treatise, hahaha. Why spend all that effort?
sjw wrote:It's not inherently naive, but proper ideas of how society should be organized may not be for this era of mankind, so it may be naive in that respect. It's not logically naive any more than mathematics or physics is naive. Both of these subjects fail to comprehensively answer every possible problem, but they certainly do a lot of practical good.
sjw wrote:In my opinion you are confusing rules and principles. Everything you say is accurate concerning rules. Most human beings only comprehend principles as rules. Like I said, principles may not be appropriate to this era of mankind.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests