only in this totally false imaginary world people won't be forced to do things I'm saying "Cow supports anarchy, therefore he supports that Mememe rapes little, underage girls" uber being a nub again i never say that either bigfoot: afaik we're focusing on socialist definition, not trolling AFAIK you're spouting nonsense, and I can't be arsed to argue with nonsense uber: i've also responded to that countless times, you're just dishonest again If you want to think that because I respect property rights, then I'm an evil monster who wants Mollymolly SHOT in the HEAD with a GUN, then go ahead. a person with no property and no money will be forced to do things he doesn't wanna do, just to survive. on our estimation there will be more force and less freedom under feudali, er, "anarchism" than under socialism bigfoot: i never engaged the property rights thing at all, what you on about Right, you just made up some shit. So, if that goes, then you support Mememe raping little, underage girls response = totally imaginary conjectures (Sorry for dragging you into this, Mememe, but everyone else is innocent :)) i'm giving a common def of socialism - you're forced to help your neighbours, not that outrageous def, you disagree? Of course I disagree uber: you're just a plain lier again That's like saying that I've given a common definition of ancapism by saying that you support raping little underage girls you are the guys who are like the communists, who have no balance or nuance, just pushing an extremist ideology and you have snappy conjectures that may satisfy you, but not to anybody outside of the cult i've always said of course there will be force lier Exhibit A: you can either be a statist, or incoherent if someone has the power that isn't an issue with me incoherent or you don't understand (which's clear) pound: i agree with them (they don't say it's right tho, just not wrong) it's not the power/force behind it, that's a natural problem, it's the idea of 'rightful' authority - that someone has the right to tell you what to do < let's go back to this, what does this even mean? government is rightful authority ok hold on while imma make a diagram yes - i reject anyone claiming 'rightful' ownership over me whether they have the pwoer to force me to do shit is a different matter Exhibit B: of course you're owned if 90% are evilies Uber, LordCow said to me in person that u exclude that minority from society the propostion is that 10% will take over * LordCow still waits LordCow, you're smarter than this, my point is that the nice people need to use force against the baddies to stabilize their society even against their consent so theres still a consequence for not agreeing with society uber: yes i know i acknowledged that a million times cant find it now. you said something like I dont need other people to protect me even against the baddies consent we'll use force, like a government Mememe the masses seem to vote for the liberators despite moaning at their false promises now that i've acknowledged, explain how they'll take over Exhibit C: anarchists (or even just a few radicals in your own society that like to cause trouble) have no reason to recognize the authority of capitalist private property, wherever theye to attack somebody if they cross a boundary on a piece of landforce and the threat of force. a "right" is essentially a license to attack somebody if they cross a boundary on a piece of land ah uber's finally getting it http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfrica/News/WATCH-Footage-emerges-of-alleged-shooter-at-Engen-petrol-station-in-Cape-Town-20150126 http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-01-26-say-what-pseudo-science-in-kzn-education epic yo LordCow embry0 you're mispronouncing my name its embri0n Lol that's hard [dq] no y yo g the point of that statement is that if you want any system of resource allocation (say, capitalist private property but it could be any) you're going to need to use force and the threat of force to establish and sustain it, because there are always going to be defectors from your entitlement and rights theories, and you're going to need to impose your private property rights on them to have it all or let them take it sup gg3 morning gg3 private property is a coercive institution yeah def to be against coercion but yet pro capitalist (private property) is to be incoherent Hi all u gaiz and if you recognize that coercion is sometimes necessary, say, to protect private property rights because private property is a good idea (solves commons problems) you are in consequentualist territory, that there are some conditions that make coercion justified k i was wrong he's not gettin it :< soz guys uh huh he fact that MEC Nkonyeni uses these fringe theories to “guide her innermost conscience” and is on record stating that they dominate her “vision of an ideal education system” is deeply problematic. We are talking about the most basic possible level of scientific literacy. sjoe so the MEC for basic educationo at kzn, requires herself some basic education ? seems completely in keeping with SA so far the thing is: radical leftists do not recognize the legitimacy of your private property, and unless you're willing to just let them take 'your' stuff, you're going to need to use force against them, against their will or consent totally why do you keep repeating stupid stuff are you stupids? ;/ if you're basing legitimacy in consent, you've just failed 'any system realistically is going to be predicated on force and the threat' there you wre doing well were* indeed, so this idea that you're basing legitimacy in consent fails luls i don't say 'everything has to be legitimate' i'm 1 person i say 1 basic thing - don't be tricked into thinking you have to support .gov that's it how the power balances work out from that is a diff story, i have many solutions but that's not important i don't mind if people say they have an alternative system (ancaps seem to want to privatize state functions as much as possible), i just hate the dogmatic and fallacious moralizing when i say i don't mind, i mean i don't think it's incoherent to present it as an alternative to statist options (but i do think the moral arguments are incoherent and loaded - propaganda more than substance), i don't think it's the best way to organize a society though. governments are good tools for dealing with negative externalities amongst other things i don't present an alternative system i present possible solutions to things ppl implode about when their brain gets shocked into considering no .gov that's fair enough There are many more, but this one is particularly interesting since Uber finally has a lightbulb moment about my position, but buries it into his dishonest subconscious in all future debates.