Why don't human beings desire liberty?

[filc]

@bloomj31

From your point of view, we can’t. I accept that.

Again what does a point of view have to do with logic? IE 1+1=2?

Can you agree with me that 1+1= 2?

If so than whats the issue? Why are you scared to engage me, and this has nothing to do with anarcho capitalism. It has to do being honest and scrutinizing your prespective. I’m ready to offer up my points of view and I encourage you to employ logic too poke at my holes.

You once argued that I was being unfair. Whos being unfair now?

@filc

Let me ask you this. How do you propose we continue a productive discussion in a state of inanity?

@bloomj31

From your point of view, we can’t. I accept that.

So how do you propose to have a productive discussion with anyone? If you would not admit logic into your own reasoning you would be better off not talking to anyone about your opinions no?

[filc]

@bloomj31

@filc

I agree, if it’s in Bloom’s interest to identify which system he will gain most from than he needs to start looking more at totalitarian systems or dictatorships. Capitalism is the wrong way to go. Dictatorship has proven in the past to work, if the goal was to service the need of a single individual.

Great point.

Yeah, if I thought I were in a position to become a dictator, that would make way more sense. I’m just a Jew in my 20’s. No one’s going to take any orders from me.

Hmm..

If you were the president would you be for or against Capitalism?

[chloe732]

@bloomj31

I don’t expect you to change your mind because of some internet discussion nor do I expect to have my mind changed.

Interesting quote. My mind has been changed from discussions on this forum. Because of these discussions, I abandoned the idea that “limited government” could be possible. Now, I understand it is a contradiction in terms. But you don’t think it’s a contradiction in terms, and that is OK. My question keeps coming back to those nagging headlines about bailouts, etc. But, to each his own…

[bloomj31]

You get the last word, Fil.

[Angurse]

Who cares what virtuescience.com says? Classifying something as a “vice,” doesn’t prove any sort of wrongness, evilness, immorality, unconscionable, unnatural, etc. But this need not be discussed here.

@wilderness

to impose words on other people as having such a vice has been demonstrated in real-time as worthy to have physical repercussions imposed for saying such a word to another, out of self-defense of course for the end action is ‘get off my property’. Imposing ones opinion upon another, especially in an uncivil manner, is considered either an initation of physical aggression or it also has to be taken into account that when in somebody elses house they can make you leave without any dialogue for merely sneezing. The visitor has no right to question the act of removal for it is basic property rights understood via the principle of original appropriation.

Nobody is imposing a thing (not that it matters). But, you’re right, this need not be discussed here.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

But your logic depends on premises that I don’t accept.

@filc

Which premise specifically don’t you accept?

@bloomj31

That there is an option besides government rape that is desirable. I think that’s the best way to say it.

Fixed.

[wilderness]

@Angurse

Who cares what virtuescience.com says? Classifying something as a “vice,” doesn’t prove any sort of wrongness, evilness, immorality, unconscionable, unnatural, etc. But this need not be discussed here.

If the act is not a vice, then it is a virtue and goes by another name.

@Angurse

@wilderness

to impose words on other people as having such a vice has been demonstrated in real-time as worthy to have physical repercussions imposed for saying such a word to another, out of self-defense of course for the end action is ‘get off my property’. Imposing ones opinion upon another, especially in an uncivil manner, is considered either an initation of physical aggression or it also has to be taken into account that when in somebody elses house they can make you leave without any dialogue for merely sneezing. The visitor has no right to question the act of removal for it is basic property rights understood via the principle of original appropriation.

Nobody is imposing a thing (not that it matters). But, you’re right, this need not be discussed here.

lol. It is ok to talk behind a person’s back but don’t say it to their face! j/k