Death Penalty

[RCSaunders]

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

I'm not calling you anything. What would be the point? You don't believe in it!

What is the it you think I don't believe? I don't believe in most of the nonsense and absurdities most people believe. But I'm absolutely certain about a great many things. It is in fact, the things I know are true that makes it possible to discern the nonsense in what is most widely believed and promoted.

Certain Knowledge

[Vitruvius]

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

I'm not calling you anything. What would be the point? You don't believe in it!

What is the it you think I don't believe? I don't believe in most of the nonsense and absurdities most people believe. But I'm absolutely certain about a great many things. It is in fact, the things I know are true that makes it possible to discern the nonsense in what is most widely believed and promoted.

Certain Knowledge

The point I'm trying to make is that political theory exists in the world. It's not a matter of whether you are political; it's the implications of the ideas you've expressed that conform to a political theory that exists in the world. Whether or not you know of it, or care about it.

I explained this to you and your response was:

"I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong"

That's what anarchists believe. Your ideas are anarchist; you don't believe in government. That's a political theory called anarchism.

[RCSaunders]

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

I'm not calling you anything. What would be the point? You don't believe in it!

What is the it you think I don't believe? I don't believe in most of the nonsense and absurdities most people believe. But I'm absolutely certain about a great many things. It is in fact, the things I know are true that makes it possible to discern the nonsense in what is most widely believed and promoted.

Certain Knowledge

The point I'm trying to make is that political theory exists in the world. It's not a matter of whether you are political; it's the implications of the ideas you've expressed that conform to a political theory that exists in the world. Whether or not you know of it, or care about it.

I explained this to you and your response was:

"I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong"

That's what anarchists believe. Your ideas are anarchist; you don't believe in government. That's a political theory called anarchism.

So, I'm an anarchist because I regard all social/political theories as wrong. So what do you call someone who is anti-government and believes government ought to be eliminated (which is what anarchist usually means)? In fact most ideologies identify what people do believe, not what they don't believe, which is why I do not identify myself with any ideology, because I think it's silly to identify oneself by what they don't believe (e.g. atheist, for example).

If all you mean by, "anarchist," is anyone who does not hold or promote any social/poltical system or agenda, then I am anarchist, even though no one else but you would recognize it.

I really think you would enjoy Bryan Caplan's, "Anarchist Theory FAQ." It's quite in depth and worth reading just for the history. I have many other resources to anarchist theory and history if your are interested.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You will have to ask them. I cannot judge how anyone else chooses to live their life or what is right for them. Everybody is different and there is no one way for human beings to live, which is what is wrong with every social/political system that attempts to force everyone one to live the same way and according to someone's idea of how society is supposed to be.

Those I described, do not fit any profile, they are just individuals who have chosen to be totally responsible for their own lives, guided by their own best reason, demanding nothing of anyone else, totally willing to succeed or fail on their own merits. Exceptional does not mean better, just different. I'm sure if you ask anyone of those who have chosen to live by their own lights they would say it was better for them, because it is the only kind of life to them that is worth living.

Eccentrics.

You are delusional. There are plenty of eccentrics who also understand that we live in a community and that co-operation makes our lives possible.

[Vitruvius]

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

I'm not calling you anything. What would be the point? You don't believe in it!

What is the it you think I don't believe? I don't believe in most of the nonsense and absurdities most people believe. But I'm absolutely certain about a great many things. It is in fact, the things I know are true that makes it possible to discern the nonsense in what is most widely believed and promoted.

Certain Knowledge

The point I'm trying to make is that political theory exists in the world. It's not a matter of whether you are political; it's the implications of the ideas you've expressed that conform to a political theory that exists in the world. Whether or not you know of it, or care about it.

I explained this to you and your response was:

"I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong"

That's what anarchists believe. Your ideas are anarchist; you don't believe in government. That's a political theory called anarchism.

So, I'm an anarchist because I regard all social/political theories as wrong. So what do you call someone who is anti-government and believes government ought to be eliminated (which is what anarchist usually means)? In fact most ideologies identify what people do believe, not what they don't believe, which is why I do not identify myself with any ideology, because I think it's silly to identify oneself by what they don't believe (e.g. atheist, for example).

If all you mean by, "anarchist," is anyone who does not hold or promote any social/poltical system or agenda, then I am anarchist, even though no one else but you would recognize it.

I really think you would enjoy Bryan Caplan's, "Anarchist Theory FAQ." It's quite in depth and worth reading just for the history. I have many other resources to anarchist theory and history if your are interested.

I've lost the reason we set out down this path, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't to discuss what you do or do not believe. Just had a glance, and it turns out you called me tyrant for supporting the death penalty - on the basis that you don't believe government has that right, and I called you an anarchist, and now here we are - a thousand years later, still talking about what you believe. I'd like to get back to the subject of the thread if that's okay with you; and having established your beliefs, or lack thereof, we can do that if you answer the question I asked long, long ago:

Tyrant is defined as: a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way. I have no personal interest in political power. So I have to assume, you're saying the death penalty is tyrannical. In what way is the death penalty cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary?

[RCSaunders]

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You will have to ask them. I cannot judge how anyone else chooses to live their life or what is right for them. Everybody is different and there is no one way for human beings to live, which is what is wrong with every social/political system that attempts to force everyone one to live the same way and according to someone's idea of how society is supposed to be.

Those I described, do not fit any profile, they are just individuals who have chosen to be totally responsible for their own lives, guided by their own best reason, demanding nothing of anyone else, totally willing to succeed or fail on their own merits. Exceptional does not mean better, just different. I'm sure if you ask anyone of those who have chosen to live by their own lights they would say it was better for them, because it is the only kind of life to them that is worth living.

Eccentrics.

You are delusional. There are plenty of eccentrics who also understand that we live in a community and that co-operation makes our lives possible.

Whoever suggested otherwise? It is the exceptional individual who is the least difficult to deal with in any community and the most valuable contributor because he refuses to have any relationship with others that is not totally voluntary, in which every individual participates by choice to their mutual benefit. The individuals I described in any community only offer whatever products or services they produce in exchange for whatever products and services others have produced, neither seeking or desiring anything they have not produce or earned by their own effort. While enjoying others, especially others' success, they never interfere in anyone else's life uninvited. Those eccentrics are the most beneficial and the least harmful in, and the most worthy of enjoying and capable of contributing to any society. What do you think cooperation is?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You will have to ask them. I cannot judge how anyone else chooses to live their life or what is right for them. Everybody is different and there is no one way for human beings to live, which is what is wrong with every social/political system that attempts to force everyone one to live the same way and according to someone's idea of how society is supposed to be.

Those I described, do not fit any profile, they are just individuals who have chosen to be totally responsible for their own lives, guided by their own best reason, demanding nothing of anyone else, totally willing to succeed or fail on their own merits. Exceptional does not mean better, just different. I'm sure if you ask anyone of those who have chosen to live by their own lights they would say it was better for them, because it is the only kind of life to them that is worth living.

Eccentrics.

You are delusional. There are plenty of eccentrics who also understand that we live in a community and that co-operation makes our lives possible.

Whoever suggested otherwise? It is the exceptional individual who is the least difficult to deal with in any community and the most valuable contributor because he refuses to have any relationship with others that is not totally voluntary, in which every individual participates by choice to their mutual benefit. The individuals I described in any community only offer whatever products or services they produce in exchange for whatever products and services others have produced, neither seeking or desiring anything they have not produce or earned by their own effort. While enjoying others, especially others' success, they never interfere in anyone else's life uninvited. Those eccentrics are the most beneficial and the least harmful in, and the most worthy of enjoying and capable of contributing to any society. What do you think cooperation is?

You're a bore when you are doing a Henry. There is no substance to your 'politics'. it's just white noise. It's simply the law of the jungle, and even in the jungle humans lived in communities. Go and live in the jungle then (if you can find one), on your own.

[RCSaunders]

Tyrant is defined as: a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way. I have no personal interest in political power. So I have to assume, you're saying the death penalty is tyrannical. In what way is the death penalty cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary?

Outside the context of a government (political power) how could there be such a thing as a, "death penalty?" Whatever any government does is, "arbitrary," (and usually unreasonable, and frequently cruel as well), so all government action is tyranical in the sense that is always arbitrary. If a government kills someone, it is a tyrannical act, whatever name they give it (e.g. death penalty) or excuse they use for carrying it out.

The only justification for ever killing another human being is in the defense against a real threat of death or destruction of one's person or property when no other method is possible, but only defense. Nothing else justifies killing another human being, especially after the fact, when defense is no longer possible. That is simply revenge--just another murder.

[RCSaunders]

There is no substance to your 'politics'.

That's because I have no, "politics." I am totally a-political and every social/political ideology is wrong.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no substance to your 'politics'.

That's because I have no, "politics." I am totally a-political and every social/political ideology is wrong.

You are delusional.

[Vitruvius]

Tyrant is defined as: a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way. I have no personal interest in political power. So I have to assume, you're saying the death penalty is tyrannical. In what way is the death penalty cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary?

Outside the context of a government (political power) how could there be such a thing as a, "death penalty?" Whatever any government does is, "arbitrary," (and usually unreasonable, and frequently cruel as well), so all government action is tyranical in the sense that is always arbitrary. If a government kills someone, it is a tyrannical act, whatever name they give it (e.g. death penalty) or excuse they use for carrying it out.

The only justification for ever killing another human being is in the defense against a real threat of death or destruction of one's person or property when no other method is possible, but only defense. Nothing else justifies killing another human being, especially after the fact, when defense is no longer possible. That is simply revenge--just another murder.

Yes well, atoms are mostly empty space - but try living your life as if solid objects don't exist. Your premise is hypocritical, as has been pointed out to you - and it makes further discussion pointless. Thank you for your interest.

[RCSaunders]

You're a bore when you are doing a Henry.

Haven't "seen" Henry around for a while? (Since Sept. 1)

[RCSaunders]

There is no substance to your 'politics'.

That's because I have no, "politics." I am totally a-political and every social/political ideology is wrong.

You are delusional.

Well of course. Anyone who does not totally agree with you and does not support you view of how a society ought to be run or organized is delusional.

[RCSaunders]

To the following comment:

The only justification for ever killing another human being is in the defense against a real threat of death or destruction of one's person or property when no other method is possible, but only defense. Nothing else justifies killing another human being, especially after the fact, when defense is no longer possible. That is simply revenge--just another murder.

On bloodthirsty defender of government execution provided this brilliant comment:

Yes well, atoms are mostly empty space - but try living your life as if solid objects don't exist. Your premise is hypocritical ...

That's what goes by the name, "philosophy," these days.

[Vitruvius]

To the following comment:

The only justification for ever killing another human being is in the defense against a real threat of death or destruction of one's person or property when no other method is possible, but only defense. Nothing else justifies killing another human being, especially after the fact, when defense is no longer possible. That is simply revenge--just another murder.

One bloodthirsty defender of government execution provided this brilliant comment:

I'm not defending the death penalty. I'm proposing it. We don't have the death penalty in the UK, and we should. I'm also suggesting a minor legal adjustment to human rights; such that the right to life can be forfeited by crimes that disregard and violate the human rights of others. The current situation where human rights are owned without reciprocal responsibilities is a mistake. To protect your right to life and integrity of the person - you must not violate these rights in others. Or else!

Yes well, atoms are mostly empty space - but try living your life as if solid objects don't exist. Your premise is hypocritical ...

That's what goes by the name, "philosophy," these days.

I don't know how else to explain the vacuity of your position. Just because you don't believe in government doesn't mean government doesn't exist. Just because you don't understand the reasons government exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for good reason. The unreasonable scepticism of RC Saunders is no measure of anything. If you cannot understand that, just add me to your long list of disbeliefs and act like I don't exist!

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33159