The DEA Steals From California's Teasury

California NORML has a new angle on the DEA's medical marijuana raids, noting that they are costing the state "tens of millions in tax revenues":

Although the DEA has tried to portray dispensaries as illegal drug dealers, records show they have operated as legal businesses, paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees. Several dispensaries closed by the DEA had licenses to operate from local governments, including facilities in Alameda County, Morro Bay, and Kern County.

California NORML cites several cases in which sales tax payments by dispensaries were disrupted by DEA raids. (It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.) "At this time of budget deficits," says California NORML Director Dale Gieringer, "we can ill afford the DEA's war on medical marijuana. Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

Comments

[David]

I wonder what would happen if a sizable majority of states had dispensary laws similar to California?

[x,y]

An interesting tack by NORML. I'm more dogmatic and believe in first principles, but as far as these types of arguments go, well played.

[Billy Beck]

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

With friends like that, I might as well splash down a syphilis cocktail on the rocks.

Fucking disgusting.

[J sub D]

Fucking disgusting.

Billy Beck -
What is so disgusting about a business "paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees."

Or pointing out that they did until shutdown by the feds?

[sage]

This isn't really surprising. NORML is pretty libertarian when it comes to the drug war - but probably that's where it ends. I don't think they're all for the smaller government we all want.

[Anonymous]

NORML is pretty libertarian when it comes to the drug war - but probably that's where it ends.

Having made the mistake of indirectly supporting them financially until I had the misfortune of meeting with them - yes.

They're typical vulgar leftists, so the nearest they get to libertarianism is that they don't want the government to destroy people who live exactly like them and do exactly and only the same things they do.

Many libertarians who happen to live that same way and do those same things mistake this for libertarianism, because they're dumb, myopic (or perhaps glaucomic) potheads.

[Billy Beck]

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

[J sub F]

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

Great response, genius. Do you think legal businesses shouldn't pay their taxes? Shouldn't provide employee benefits? Shouldn't point it out? What, oh libertarian guru, is "so fucking disgusting".

[Dangerman]

Yeah, J sub D, you fucking n00b, why don't you let REAL libertarians like Billy Beck here tell it like it is?

C'mon Billy, make me proud.

[Billy Beck]

"Do you think legal businesses..."

Stop. Just stop it.

[Episiarch]

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

[Ruthless]

Let's start calling this more of the panhandlers' approach to legalizing drugs.

When will we just stand up and say the Founders had a huge oversight? They tried to protect our right to put whatever ideas we wish into our heads. They SHOULD HAVE also protected our right to put whatever substances we wish into our bodies.
The only reason they didn't was because they could not know how stupid their descendents would be.

[J sub D]

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them.

[Billy Beck]

Bullshit.

[Kwix]

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 3:45pm | #
Bullshit.

Do you think you could be a bit less vague here? I mean "bullshit" is a fine dandy word but does not, on its own, make a sentence.

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

I suspect that NORML is trying to play the state against the fed by pointing out how much money the dispensaries put into California's coffers. That's the kind of friend I can deal with. It surely ain't libertopia but it is a step (back)towards federalism and that is, IMHO, a good thing.

I find NORML's perspective and tack to be interesting if doomed to failure. California has shown little interest preventing DEA raids, sometimes to the extent of actually providing police assistance. I am just not seeing a local yokel police chief telling his men to "form a barricade" against the invading DEA hordes regardless if the Governator himself declares that is what is to be done.

[zig zag man]

IMHO NORML has done nothing to enhance my liberty. They take money from people who believe in ending the war on cannabis, but do close to zero when it comes to actually making progress. It seems to me that they only hire lawyers to work the courts rather than support real political change. Unless someone can point out dramatic changes brought about by NORML in the war on cannabis, I think it is a work program for lawyers.

NORML likes to proclaim that it is doing a good job by inviting people to Amsterdam for a conference. Yeah, everyone can afford to put their lives on hold and go over to Amsterdam. (It will be interesting encountering ICE on their return flight as most of them will be pulled aside for secondary searches.) While the rest of us do the real work toward change. What a waste of $. NORML is doing less than most people on the internet for free.

[zig zag man]

Sorry;

NORML is doing less than most people do on the internet for free.

[R C Dean]

It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.

Is anyone shocked that government employees would be insensitive to the costs of an enterprise, not to mention less than clear on the difference between net and gross income?

[Billy Beck]

"Do you think you could be a bit less vague here?"

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

[Bingo]

I had this idea that all members of congress should have to undergo mandatory bi-monthly drug testing. For the children.

[Kwix]

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 4:18pm | #
"Do you think you could be a bit less vague here?"

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

And which "bullshit" would that be? That "legal businesses" pay taxes (accurate) or that anarcho-libertarians have been called other names (also accurate).

If you are going to confront someone on a topic you consider "bullshit" it helps if a)you lay out your argument in clear detail and b)proceed to argue your points.

"Bullshit" is not a discussion/debate/argument or a sentence.

[VFW x3]

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please read our Constitution while you still can.

While a State may ban a substance, the Federal Government has no legal authority to do so.

Make no mistake, they have guns and tasers and will kick down your door, rob, kidnap and torture you until you fall into line but their behavior no more legal than that of the Taliban when they do the same.

[Billy Beck]

"And which "bullshit" would that be?"

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

[J sub D]

Billy Beck -

I'm over the attack of the polites. You are a boor. You have nothing but invective to add to the conversation. I'll await your insightful, nuanced response.

[WTF]

Billy Beck, if you're willing to invest this much energy in being a dick, why won't you invest less energy in answering a simple question?

[Billy Beck]

Well, Mr. Judy-boy with no name, you can call me a boor if you want to, but you'll never see me creeping around dropping insinuations that I'm not man enough to state right out loud when I have something in mind.

Get it?

WTF -- let me explain something to you, sonny: the creep I just addressed already knows the answer to the question that a couple of you have been too fucking stupid to figure out.

Now: are there any other questions? Let me know, and I'll determine whether they're actually worth serious effort.

[WTF]

So I guess you just really like being a dick then. Fair enough. Have a nice weekend, internet tough guy.

[Billy Beck]

{shrug} That's what you 'guess'.

[J sub D]

Let's start calling this more of the panhandlers' approach to legalizing drugs.

Revenue was a talking point in the debate over the 21st Amendment. Money talks.

[Billy Beck]

Shorter Judy-boy: "Habit roolz."

[Kwix]

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 5:20pm | #
"And which "bullshit" would that be?"

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

That you are an asshat who can't be bothered to lay out a simple argument. Yeah, I got that. Thanks.

It is you sir that have no serious business attending this forum as it is a place for discussion and airing of ideas not blanket statements of "bullshit".

I know you think you are God's gift to liberty, but until you present a reason for me to believe it in this forum, say a reasoned argument, you are just another shrill voice on the HnR screaming for attention.

[Billy Beck]

"That you are an asshat who can't be bothered to lay out a simple argument."

Look, kid: the word I chose, very deliberately, is the argument. Pay close attention while I get out the Big Crayon and scratch out the Big Picture on your flat forehead. Watch; The punk I'm talking about said this:

"Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them."

And I called it what it is.

And then, some of you decided to get up on your hind-legs and start hollering and moaning about "vagueness".

Fuck you, until you can put the vaunted incision of your beady little eye on the ball.

[J sub D]

Billy Beck,
I told you the polites attack was over, you barely literate, foul mouthed, poor excuse for protoplasm of doubtful intelligence.

Other terms for anarcho-capitalists like yourself include, but are not limited to, fools, dumbshits, morons, idiots, simpletons, the feeble minded, off their meds, dipshits, fucktards, asslicking cunts, pimples on the boil on the diseased ass of a crack whore, et al.

Is that language that your childish, unbalanced mind can understand, Billy Beck? Damn, you're a fuckin' loser.

[Billy Beck]

Oh, I might have expected a lot better than that from you, sir, being a man of your education and all, and most especially in a place full of such indignant clamoring for "arguments".

I might have, but I sorted you on the first lap here.

[Reilly]

...and just think how much better this thread would be if certain people (well, person) weren't pricks.

[Billy Beck]

Okay, let's review the bidding: I advised a person here to "stop". He comes on with a strictly flubber-spined cough behind his hand because -- he says -- he's too "polite" to spit out his own hairball. I call him on it. Others promptly stomp their gas-pedals all the way to the floor and drive right off the edge of that curve, completely blind to the road-signs. Flubber-Spine heaves himself into action and cranks up seventy-six words of the most dirt-common flailing available on the internet today -- all while the questions of "argument" are hanging in the air, mind you.

And I'm the "prick".

Tell me something: what does all that make you?

[WTF]

Actually, lil' Billy, the heat you're getting comes more from the comments you conveniently left out of your ever so self-serving summary of the thread - your refusal to answer J sub D's repeated questions about your first (12:57) post, as well as this:

"J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum."

But I suspect you already knew that; you're just having too much fun being an internet tough guy.

[Billy Beck]

That very issue that I stated in what you quoted is why I told him to "stop".

I knew what I was dealing with. I always see 'em coming a mile away, and I have a long history online to prove it.

[WTF]

I think we can all agree that you've proven _something_ here, but I'm afraid it's not what you think, and it's not terribly flattering to you.

[Billy Beck]

Ps., kiddo: I asked you if you had questions, but I was not going to take another step with you until you grasped the issue that I'd identified in one word. It was right there in front of you, and you never did because -- "internet tough guy" -- you had your dick wired to your gas-pedal.

You can have it your way. I'll always see to it.

[Stephen Gordon]

An entire thread filled with acrimony and Donderoooooooooo hasn't even arrived yet?

[Awik Donderooooooo]

Billy,
I see you are a true libertarian! Come with me and vote for Rudy and together we shall rule the world!!

Stephen,
Sorry I'm late. I'll swing by and "light your cigar" later.

[J sub D]

I knew what I was dealing with. I always see 'em coming a mile away, and I have a long history online to prove it.

Hilarious. There is NO WAY I could make up anything that telling.

[Billy Beck]

Awik: I have never voted in my life and I never will. I do not submit my rights to the whims of majorities. Only fools do that.

Ron Paul should get out of government and seek honest employment.

"The saddest life is that of an aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success disgraceful."

(H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, December 9, 1929)

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy,

Looks like you've picked up some habits from Priss. Can't you stop toying with the poor helpless little things?

[Billy Beck]

At my third comment, Kyle, I was ready to just let it go. When one of 'em started his bloody insipid crap, that was it. "Fight's on." I was ready for anything, if he'd been man enough to step up to it, and we might have gotten serious about things. When the chimp chorus started up, it was as obvious as daylight what was going on, and I made up my mind that I was going to run them right over the cliff.

You're looking at people with a rank pretense to ability with what they take up here. These assholes will vote, and they can't even manage to hold together what's staring them right in the face with all the time in the world to read it slowly with their fucking fingers up on the monitor.

I'm telling you, man: it's the Endarkenment.

We're not going to make it.

[Kyle Bennett]

I'm telling you, man: it's the Endarkenment.

We're not going to make it.

"When the lights go out in New York..." No, we likely won't make it, but we might make it through.

[*]

Billy seems hell-bent on proving the Gresham's Law applies as aptly to forum commentary as it does to currency. Why does this site seem to draw so many schizos?

[*]

To comment on the actual substance of the article: I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians.

[Kyle Bennett]

Why does this site seem to draw so many schizos?

Because "Reason" is supposed to mean something, but instead we get: "I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

[Patrick Chkoreff]

J sub F wrote:

"Do you think legal businesses shouldn't pay their taxes?"

An individual should only pay taxes voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay taxes, nobody should force him to do it.

"Shouldn't provide employee benefits?"

An individual should only pay employee benefits voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay employee benefits, nobody should force him to do it.

"Shouldn't do X?"

An individual should only do X voluntarily. If he is not willing to do X, nobody should force him to do it.

If you have any more questions, please see "X" above. Thank you.

[Kyle Bennett]

An individual should only pay taxes voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay taxes, nobody should force him to do it.

Oh, c'mon, you can't do that. Why then, how would they fund the drug war?

Your argument is not going to be persuasive to many Californians.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Kyle wrote:

"Your argument is not going to be persuasive to many Californians."

LOL. Classic. Spot on. Funny 'cause it's true.

[Billy Beck]

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

I think about "many Californians", and I'm not surprised.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Thanks all, I now have a handy phrase to soften the blow of declarative sentences, e.g. "Although this will not be persuasive to many Californians, a 2% rate of return compounded for 10 years yields approximately 21.9%." And to think that I was born in California.

[Ayn_Randian]

OK, I'm not sure who let the anarcho-tards in, or if they had some vision in their heads that they were going to come over and start acting like rank assholes and ruin the Reason community, but they have another thing coming.

I note that Mr. Bennett here gets his Internet and e-mail through Comcast. Mr. Bennett, did you know that Comcast, since 1997, has given almost 6 million dollars to lobbyists and well-connected politicos? And almost $500,000 went to GWB

So if you want to play all holier-than-thou True Libertarian?, maybe you should consider going with a company who won't place your internet bill directly in the pocket of the RNC/DNC.

Oh, what's that you say? You have to have internet, and all companies lobby, so what's the dif? You mean that you sacrifice your Libertarian Street Cred so you can post belittling little circle-jerk comments? Oh, well, I guess then you'd be a hypocrite.

[J sub D]

Support Anarchism. Because it works so well in Mogadishu.

[Billy Beck]

"...ruin the Reason community..."

{laugh, laugh, laugh} Yeah; it's such a serenely contented herd of cats, you see, and it just won't do to be upsetting their concert-purring.

You idiot. Who the hell do you wish you could be?

[Billy Beck]

"Support Anarchism. Because it works so well in Mogadishu."

Yeah, and that bunch of dirt-scratching savages are so well trained in Western traditions of reason, too, that it makes the point. To an imbecile.

[J sub D]

Yeah, and that bunch of dirt-scratching savages are so well trained in Western traditions of reason, too, that it makes the point. To an imbecile.

Do you believe it would work in New York City? Des Moines, Iowa? Anywhere? Anarchists deny the basic nature of man. That is delusional at best.

[Kyle Bennett]

JD,

At least you have the integrity to properly credit the progress that has been made in Somalia. Look it up some time.

Shorter Ayn_Randian: "I didn't mean that big a tent!"

[Billy Beck]

"Do you believe it would work in New York City? Des Moines, Iowa? Anywhere?"

It does, right now, even as we type.

The basic necessary conditions for what we're talking about, though, are being bred right out of the culture at a furious pace. It's not going to be long -- on a proper historical long-view -- before the only differences between the savages of Mogadishu and the ones here will very stylishly superficial.

"Anarchists deny the basic nature of man. That is delusional at best."

You know, I've been at this a long time. And it has never stopped amazing me: what a confession that is, from every person I ever saw write it.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

There is no anarchy in my business. I am an archon, a leader, and we have archy here. However, if you stop serving me adequately, I will not lock you in a cage or take your property -- I will simply stop serving you.

... Force is *so* 20th century ...

[Kyle Bennett]

... Force is *so* 20th century ...

Now we're even, exchange-of-catch-phrase wise, that is.

[J sub D]

You know, I've been at this a long time. And it has never stopped amazing me: what a confession that is, from every person I ever saw write it.

Confession or facing reality? Speaking of confessions, here is an interesting one.

[Billy Beck]

"Confession or facing reality?"

There is nothing mutually exclusive about them, in this context. It could be both, but beware: if it is, then it's time to take a long hard look in the mirror.

"Speaking of confessions, here is an interesting one."

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

[Kyle Bennett]

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

Why should he, when the implication lets everyone make up their own meaning, to suit their individual tastes. So much more Libertarian, dontchya know.

[J sub D]

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

Why? It spraks for itself.

[J sub D]

Make that speaks.

[Billy Beck]

It's nothing but the truth. Whether you like it or not.

[Kyle Bennett]

Oh, I like "sprak" so much better. For some time now, we've needed a phrase for this kind of pseudo-conversation. I think "sprak" fits quite nicely.

Sprak to me, JD.

[Billy Beck]

That was not uncalled for, Kyle.

It's exactly what's going on.

[J sub D]

It's nothing but the truth. Whether you like it or not.

Oh, I believe ya.

[Billy Beck]

Bullshit".

[Linda Morgan]

Anarchists deny the basic nature of man.

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

[Kyle Bennett]

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

It apparently is to some humans' natures. The ones that confess it so, anyway.

[Billy Beck]

"Confession": anyone facing Linda's question must handle all the implications.

[Kyle Bennett]

anyone facing Linda's question must handle all the implications.

The ones that think it so couldn't possibly handle all the implications. Isn't that the point of this exercise?

[Billy Beck]

I hope not, Kyle.

That hope is the whole reason why I'm still doing this, even in the face of more bullshit.

[Awik Donderoooo]

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 11:13am | #
You idiot. Who the hell do you wish you could be?

Oooh, ooh!!! I want to be Billy Beck!!

There's nothing more that I want in life than to be a mid-life hack who thinks that not fomenting change, by either voting or action, then bitching about the existing situation is the noble and principled way to live.

Billy Beck wrote:
I fucking hate this place.
But it's not as if I hate America.

Billy Beck is too "principled" to play within the bounds of government by voting and paying taxes but too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it.

Shit or get off the pot Billy-boy but the time for your porcelain contemplation is over. The more time you spend doing nothing in the name of freedom the more liberty that slips through your fingers.

[Billy Beck]

"...too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it."

That's what you think.

[Ayn_Randian]

Oh little Billy is lying to you. From his link:

However, I will not resist with arms against prosecution.

How's that again, you chickenshit? You know what, Billy, perhaps its time you stopped hiding behind angry arrogance and futilely posting on medium-trafficked blogs and go out there and shot you some coppers. Come on, man, somebody's gotta be the hundredth monkey.

Seriously, why won't you resist? Aren't they the ones initiating force on you? Isn't it your right to defend yourself? So man the fuck up and do it already!

Go ahead, hero...we're right behind ya.

[J sub D]

"...too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it."

That's what you think.

Poseur.

[Ayn_Randian]

Oh, Beckster, you're such a man!

From Little Beckster's Blog:

I just took another call from the New York State Troopers' Police Benevolent Association. That's about the fourth one this year.

The guy on the phone was all cheery like we were bar-buddies or something. "Mr. Beck, unfortunately, we've had five troopers killed in the line of duty this year, and..."

And that's where I bit his ass off. "I don't care. Go to Albany. Don't call me anymore."

I bet you have the BIGGEST DICK around, you know, being an asshole to the troopers' association makes you a real man.

Really it does...you're a stud.

[Kyle Bennett]

That hope is the whole reason why I'm still doing this

Remember where you are, Billy. These are the three percenters that in theory don't need convincing, but are going to convince the rest. You find hope in that?

My hopes lie in a different direction, and my purpose here is not to see what I can put in, but what I can take out.

Remember who it was that had to be stopped to put the lights out.

BTW, Patrick, I emailed you. Just in case it got filtered.

[J sub D]

Really it does...you're a stud.

Ayn_Randian -

Just musing here.
Angry white male. Failure in school, on the job, in life generally. Unable to form adult relationships with women. Play the Billy Badass game on the tubes, fantasizing about how tough and revolutionary he really is. Goes to work at Dairy Queen on Monday.

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy, it looks like they're really taking a shine to you. I mean, they've got fully fleshed out fantasies now, fer Chrissake.

[Ayn_Randian]

I see Kyle's still contributing to Leviathan by refusing to renounce Comcast. That's OK, Kyle, your posts here are more important than pretty much directly giving money to the politicians you assuredly hate. Because we're all SO fascinated by the recent influx of anarchoscum.

Beckster seems to have forgotten that Rand was explicitly NOT an anarchist and believed that the State had a role in providing a military, police and courts. But perhaps he doesn't read Atlas Shrugged as often as he claims.

[Kyle Bennett]

ARian,

I wasn't talking to you.

[Ayn_Randian]

No, J sub, it's worse than that.

You know those folks who read Objectivist literature and think it's OK to act like assholes? (you might not, they're usually teenagers)...it's that, writ large, with more old-age bitterness and with a splash of music hippy on the side.

Billy, I acted like you like, four years ago...I get the whole "angry individualist" thing, I really do, because I used to live it. I still consider myself an Objectivist. But this white-boy "Fuck da Police" thing you have going is NOT Objectivism. Objectivism is a tool for living life; it's not supposed to be your all-consuming obsession.

[J sub D]

ARian,

I wasn't talking to you.

He's right there, Ayn_Randian, Kyle was talking to his anarchist butt buddy.

[Kyle Bennett]

I acted like you like, four years ago

Wow, four years, huh? You're like, what, an elder statesman, now then?

Objectivism is a tool for living life

So why don't you live the damned thing then? You think spending your life pleading for permission to take a piss is the way to do that?

[Billy Beck]

Do you people want to argue, or talk about me?

[Kyle Bennett]

Do you people want to argue, or talk about me?

They don't know the difference.

[WTF]

Gawd, you guys (Billy-boy and Kyle) are far more unintentionally hilarious than you'll probably ever realize, with your cryptic apocalyptic statements and your internet tough guy attitudes. Shouldn't you both be off somewhere masturbating angrily to your charcoal sketches of Ayn Rand and Wonder Woman touching each other in their dirty places?

I heartily encourage you keep up the tough guy talk; I could definitely use some more laughs today. I'm sure the people reading along in silent amusement agree.

[Kyle Bennett]

I could definitely use some more laughs today.

Laugh all you want. You don't matter.

[WTF]

"Laugh all you want. You don't matter."

That's perfect! Keep it up, but next time, if you could include some reference to "sheeple," that would be pure unintentional comedy gold!

[RWW]

Then why bother, Kyle? I agree with you and Billy; these people are scum -- worse than scum, really, in their "free market" pretensions. So why all the effort here?

[Billy Beck]

I'll tell you why.

It's because I don't think these people are all that's left of America.

That's why.

[Ayn_Randian]

I never said he was talking to me.

Wow, four years, huh? You're like, what, an elder statesman, now then?

No, I'm a fast learner.

You think spending your life pleading for permission to take a piss is the way to do that?

We're not at that point, you hyperbolic bastard.

And even though we might find more to agree on than disagree, you're fucking with my friends. You can't just crash in to a community, spouting off nasty rhetoric and shotgun blasting everyone you see because you think you're some kind of Uebermenschen because you really "get" Rand and the proles don't.

Cocksuckers like you all are what give Objectivists a terrible name in the libertarian/freedom-loving community. You're nothing more than religionists, claiming that there's the "One True Way" to Enlightenment and the ignorant masses are deserving of nothing more than derision.

I see you're still not renouncing Comcast, even though they lobby with the "eeeevil" State.

Do any of you anarcho-folks even realize that Rand supported the military (see: Rand's Address to USMA) the courts and the police?

There are intelligent, thoughtful Objectivists who have debated and furthered the philosophy (because it's not complete). You guys are NOT among them

Then why bother, Kyle? I agree with you and Billy; these people are scum -- worse than scum, really, in their "free market" pretensions. So why all the effort here?

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, douchebag.

[Kyle Bennett]

So why all the effort here?

Because it's not for them.

Cocksuckers like you all are what give Objectivists a terrible name

Here's a hint: I don't care the slightest what kind of reputation objectivism or Ayn Rand has. It's completely irrelevant.

the ignorant masses are deserving of nothing more than derision.

They're beyond deserving even that, and any derision they got here from me was purely an afterthought.

the "eeeevil" State.

You really don't get it. The state is not the root of the "eeevil", it's the symptom. You want to see the root? Here is is: "I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians." It's not your tax money they want, that's a means to their ends. It's your continual pleading they live on. And "they" isn't the state, it's those "many Californians" you're pleading with. Stop it, already.

Do any of you anarcho-folks even realize that Rand supported the military

Do any of you supposed free thinkers realize how irrelevant it is what Rand supported or didn't support?

[Ayn_Randian]

Do any of you supposed free thinkers realize how irrelevant it is what Rand supported or didn't support?

As if free-thinking requires starting from scratch every time a human is born. You don't believe in say, building on knowledge? Rand's intellectual insights carry a little more weight with me, so yeah, I guess it is relevant to know what other people think. Do you think there's a reason the phrase is Don't reinvent the wheel?

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

Do you realize you're getting your panties in a bunch over what one commenter said on a blog? Seriously, Reason just reported on the story. You guys jumped all over one commenter. How pathetic are you?

Still waiting on that Comcast explanation...how about it, little purist? Don't you think it's time you dumped a company that has pump half-a-mil to GWB already?

They're beyond deserving even that, and any derision they got here from me was purely an afterthought.

Well, go away then. Stop wasting your precious pearls of wisdom on swine like us and fuck off.

[Kyle Bennett]

As if free-thinking requires starting from scratch every time a human is born. ... Do you realize you're getting your panties in a bunch over what one commenter said on a blog?

I take it you've read enough Rand to know what "dropping context" means?

Stop wasting your precious pearls of wisdom on swine

I've told you, it's not for you. Let me put it more bluntly: I, (and I presume Billy as well), have deliberately hijacked this thread for my own purposes that have nothing to do with you, your little coffee klatch here, or whatever it is the Reason editors think they're trying to accomplish. I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Even this post is not meant for your benefit.

[VikingMoose]

Kyle = RWW = Billy = 7.5/10 trolling
(potential awesome troll link with "WTF")

7.5/10 good job! But Randian kicked yer asses if this weren't a troll job. But as a troll job, URKOBOLD might not wither your taint.

And Randian still wins the day.

[Ayn_Randian]

I, (and I presume Billy as well), have deliberately hijacked this thread for my own purposes.

Wow, you're just a modern-day Ragnar now, aintcha? *swoons* I can't imagine any purpose of hijacking a blog thread that wouldn't reek of pathetic.

Yeah, and you're buddy-boy Beckster seems to think his purpose here is to "run 'em to the wall." I say again...pa...the...tic

And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you for admitting you're here to troll and hijack discussions.

[Kyle Bennett]

Viking,

It was not a troll. It's not for them.

I can't imagine any purpose of hijacking a blog thread that wouldn't reek of pathetic

Though it won't be persuasive to many Californians, my purpose was to speak with and to the few people in the room who might matter. You are not among them.

And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you

They'd have every right to. Or, if they simply state that they wish me to no longer comment here, I will honor it.

It's be their loss, but they're lost already.

[Ayn_Randian]

VM, thanks for the props. I understand stopping the motor of the world, but trolling? WTF?

[Billy Beck]

I'm not going anywhere, and I don't care what you think of Rand, of what you think I think of Rand, or what you think of me. I don't care about the "community" that you think you ramrod. There was no "hijack[ed]" discussion until "your community" hit the gas at December 14, 2007, 3:38pm. You could look it up.

And you have nothing to say to any of the principles or their implications at hand.

Yell all you want. You don't count.

[Ayn_Randian]

You know, I'm stunned that as little as you care, Beckster, you're still here.

Oh, I see, you're all lathered up about somebody slamming anarchos. God, cry about it a little, huh? I'm trying to understand here: if you care so little about others' opinions, why are you all wrapped around the axle about...uhh, someone's opinion?

And you have nothing to say to any of the principles or their implications at hand

From what I've seen, neither have you. Maybe, Your Highness, you'd care to come down from Olympus for a hot minute and dispense some godly wisdom on us peons?

[Who Its Meant For]

[i]And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you for admitting you're here to troll and hijack discussions.[/i]

That is precisely why no one on this earth should listen to a thing you say, in matters trivial or otherwise. You obviously can't grasp this concept enough to meet it head on, and therefore there will be no reasoned, intelligent debate on your part, so you'd rather they "be banned" by those with power to do so.

[VikingMoose]

I certainly, for one, does not, nor can, count. As for the observation of trolling, that stands. As does the guess that you three (at least) are probably the same - hanging out at your community college computer lab.

Randian has demonstrated an excellent knowledge of All Things Rand, and since you two are going for the abrasive argument, you'll lose to the regular who knows his stuff better. On points and on personality (Randian, however, finished tied for third in the swimsuit part. I'm sure he understands)

And from how you've behaved, I'm happy to take the loss. In fact, I'll head out to my bunk, complete with my Noam Chomsky Blow Up Doll, my leather-bound copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies" (the edition with the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69), and I'll be BATIN till my heart's content.

And I won't miss you three (*at least) when you go. But Randian and the rest of his Delta Buddies (?) are always welcome. Even though he's from Columbus. And people from Columbus are a little off. Especially THE COLUMBUS ACADEMY people. But Upper Arlington swimming was really good.

[Kyle Bennett]

Who Its Meant For,

*nod*

[Billy Beck]

"I'm trying to understand here:"

No, you're not, so cut the bullshit.

"...if you care so little about others' opinions, why are you all wrapped around the axle about...uhh, someone's opinion?"

I didn't say "others". I said "you".

And that was a half-assed try at a good example of why you don't count.

[Ayn_Randian]

You obviously can't grasp this concept enough to meet it head on

NONE of you has seen fit to lay out a concept that can be met "head on". Maybe, like I said, you can come down off of the Mount and simply state an argument.

Especially THE COLUMBUS ACADEMY people. But Upper Arlington swimming was really good.

We only claim the Academy people in the way that you would defend that weird uncle to outsiders (shhh...tell no one!). But yes, UA swimming is great (esp. the female seniors...uhh...Heads to Stevo's Bunk

[J sub D]

There was no "hijack[ed]" discussion until "your community" hit the gas at December 14, 2007, 3:38pm. You could look it up.

I did. Hhere 'tis. In it's entirety.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them.

Sensitive little ego you got there Billy boy. Do not go out into the real world. Someone might say worse than that to you after you act like a rude prick as a way of introducing youself.

[Ayn_Randian]

Do not go out into the real world.

J sub: fortunately, with the social skills that our little Beckster has demonstrated, I don't think we have to worry about that.

Beckster, don't you have some Policy Charity's Representative to go swear up and down or something? I mean, that is what makes you such a right-on rational super-stud, right?...being rude-as-all-fuck to a charity person?

Don't forget Rand's watchword, little kiddies: benevolence.

[Kyle Bennett]

Maybe, like I said, you can come down off of the Mount and simply state an argument.

6:43

But you won't meet it head on, I'll bet on it. You haven't yet, in the last hour and eight minutes.

[Mike S.]

There's a reason I don't indulge forums like these much anymore, and it is this: I just want to see damn near everyone die in writhing agony now. Why? Because you deserve it so very badly, you circle-jerking thieves who always manage to find a "need" for the continued authorization of state force.

True, objective Justice would have nothing less, and would not stand to have anything like comedy delaying her action.

[Billy Beck]

"Do not go out into the real world."

I've been around "the real world" more than you could stand to know. You're dead wrong.

Now, here's your descent from the mount: go answer Linda Morgan's question.

[Ayn_Randian]

you'd rather they "be banned" by those with power to do so.

Well, for one, when you come on and freely admit that you're hijacking a thread for some kind of Sphinxian purposes, some great Catholic mystery that no one can know about, then, yeah, I see no problem with banning your ass from further discussion.

And don't forget, assclown, it's not power they have to ban you, it's their free right as the property owners to ban you, and my privilege to ask, something you and all your little chirping buddies should respect more than anything.

[Kyle Bennett]

ARian,

You have two to choose from now, and I think Billy's suggestion is more on point.

Should we give you till, say 8:30 to meet something, anything, head on, and after that assume you never will?

[Ayn_Randian]

I just want to see damn near everyone die in writhing agony now.

HOLY FUCK THERE'S ANOTHER ONE OF THEM! And he's seen to fit to completely leave the reservation.

Hey Mike S., as someone who believes in benevolence and the goodness of most people, I hope that you free yourself from your mental prison and go live your life, instead of wishing death upon everyone.

Kyle - I see no argument in your 6:43 post. No cleanly stated premise or statement of contention. As a matter of fact, the one statement you made with a "?" mark, I answered.

I've been around "the real world" more than you could stand to know. You're dead wrong.

Why should I accept some preposterous statement like that with no facts or evidence to back it up?

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

I don't believe in human nature; humans are born tabula rasa. So your question is false from the start. YOU FAIL.

[J sub D]

I'm outta here. I've been much amused by the soicial misfits, but that's enough. To Billy, and his maladjusted cirle jerk buddies, FUCK OFF!

To others, talk to ya later. These ain't troll. These are disturbed individuals.

[Ayn_Randian]

And no, Kyle, I am not doing this all night and morning (since it's 0415 where I am right now). So hurry up, make a real argument, or go away.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR, should we take that as your concession speech?

It's only 8:07, you still have 23 minutes. C'mon, you can do it, work that little brain of yours like it's never been worked before.

[Kyle Bennett]

I don't believe in human nature

See, Billy, that is pretty much what's left of America, and the world. There's no saving them anymore, there's only saving ourselves from them.

[Ayn_Randian]

Kyle - clearly you have no interest in actually discussing anything. Your 6:43 post had NO defined contention or debatable questions. I'll wait about, oh, 10 more minutes or so for you to come up with one. Tell you what: quote from the post what you want to discuss (because my tiny little brain just can't seem to divine a question from your rantings) and we'll go from there.

It's a reasonable request.

[Kyle Bennett]

You still have another 17 minutes.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

CLEARLY KYLE IS INFLUENCED BY THIS. HIER.

URKOBOLD HAS LAND IN TAINTSVILLE, FL FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM THEM. OR IS IT THOSE WHO ARE THEM TO SAVE THEMSELVES WISH?

IT IS CONFUSING. SUFFICE TO SAY, URKOBOLD IS THERE. TAINTSVILLE IS THERE. AND WEIBSKOBOLD IS BOUNCY BOUNCY.

[Ayn_Randian]

And Kyle loses, for failing to actually provide an argument he wants to discuss.

I am sure you're fine with that though, Kyle, because you and Billy and all your little friends can withdraw from the thread and jerk off to how glorious your thought process was and how well you all did and glory in your self-satisfaction. Despite the fact none of you ever, ever put forth a clearly defined debatable point or rational argument.

Billy and Kyle and all his little minions have proven themselves very effective time-wasters, and I furious at myself for even bothering with a bunch of bullshit artists such as them.

[Kyle Bennett]

Oh Noes! I'll have to take that as a definite concession. I'm devastated with disappointment, but that's what I get for allowing myself to hope.

I furious at myself

No you not.

Go off to bed now, sleepy head.

[WTF]

"...and I furious at myself for even bothering with a bunch of bullshit artists such as them."

You can't look at it that way, AR; you have to think of it as some sort of performance art and enjoy the absurdity of the notion that there are people who are truly so self-deluded as to think this crap they're saying means something. It also helps if you're amused by the pretentiousness, rather than offended by it.

They've been a wonderful distraction for me while I've been at work all day. You deserve to get some enjoyment out of it too. It's when you try to address them on honest, intelligent terms that you lose; they made it abundantly clear quite a while ago that they're not so big on honesty and intelligence.

[Ernest Brown]

"honesty and intelligence?"

The honesty and intelligence of calling oneself an "Ayn Randian" while engaging in wholesale social metaphysics and turning a blind eye to the whole point of the moral illegitimacy of submitting to the coercion of the state as NORML is doing? Yeah, I thought so.

Herein lies the garbage:

"What is so disgusting about a business "paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees."

Or pointing out that they did until shutdown by the feds?"

Instead of addressing this abject surrended to the right of the state to tax, these oh so vaunted "enemies" of collectivism got their fithly little soots in the air and threw Breck Girl hissy fits because they can only live their lives through the approval of others. Rand couldn't stand Billy Beck, but she couldn't stop vomiting if she returned from Valhalla and wittnessed this disgusting display.

[Shem]

Revenue was a talking point in the debate over the 21st Amendment. Money talks.

There's a compelling argument to be made that it was *the* talking point, and that complaints about gangsterism were just window dressing.

[Ernest Brown]

"abject surrender"

[VM]

AR - sent you email. Unrelated to discussion hier. Could have to do with UA or StX or something Ohio. Or might not. You'll see.

*disappears in cloud of foam*

[Linda Morgan]

I see J sub D ducked out before I could ask if he would yet care to address my question about what he meant when he said that anarchists deny the basic nature of man. He might have considered offering one of the yes and no options since he was in such a hurry.

But I see that ARian has taken a stab: I don't believe in human nature; humans are born tabula rasa.

And that certainly does help explain why s/he didn't say "anarchists deny the basic nature of man" like J sub D did, and hints at why s/he does not offer the requested clarification.

[Shem]

However, if you stop serving me adequately, I will not lock you in a cage or take your property -- I will simply stop serving you.

It's so cute to see people who are too effete to defend themselves from society turn their weakness into a virtue by refusing to even try. Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces.

[Jeffrey Quick]

"If the Feds would lay off CA Med MJ, the state could steal its fair share." -- shorter NORML.

It's a turf war between rival gangs. And the only kind of person who would cheer one or the other on is a gangster.

[Linda Morgan]

Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces.

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

[Linda Morgan]

Do you

[Billy Beck]

"It's so cute to see people who are too effete to defend themselves from society turn their weakness into a virtue by refusing to even try. Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces."

Thanx. I'll take my chances.

Would that be a problem to you?

[Shem]

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

Some of them. The threat of the application of its force also provides a useful deterrent to others. The aforementioned Bubba, for example, who thinks twice about acting when the threat of incarceration is in play. I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism. That's no way to run a society. In fact, it's not society at all. And, considering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important.

Billy-Not at all. Though it is vaguely irritating to have to listen to you crow about the virtues of your choice as if you were Prometheus bringing fire down to we heathens living in the shadow of Olympus. A little like having to listen to a younger brother who's just learned his multiplication tables. But as I said above, amusement at your mixture of naivete and arrogance makes up for it, somewhat.

[Ernest Brown]

"Some of them. The threat of the application of its force also provides a useful deterrent to others. The aforementioned Bubba, for example, who thinks twice about acting when the threat of incarceration is in play. I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism. That's no way to run a society. In fact, it's not society at all. And, considering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important."

OK gang, it's time for Hit N' Run's newest game show, SPOT THE CONTRADICTION!

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian: Hey Mike S., as someone who believes in benevolence and the goodness of most people, I hope that you free yourself from your mental prison and....

Explode brown, you crummy second-hander.

[Shem]

Tell me how it's contradictory, Ernest. Because "in the absence of authority to prevent it, people will take advantage of each other to a degree that will render civilization impossible" seems pretty straightforward.

[Mike S.]

Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?

[Kyle Bennett]

in the absence of authority to prevent it, people will take advantage of each other to a degree that will render civilization impossible

But that's exactly what you advocate, and what you've mostly gotten.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy-Not at all."

Fine, then. We're agreed that government is not a value to me. Would you force me to pay for it?

"Though it is vaguely irritating to have to listen to you crow about..."

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's all very regrettable, but that doesn't matter to the political question. I have to listen to people like you singing paeans to government all day long, and all this is how things are naturally going to go until we get that question resolved. I'd have better things to do, too, but I'm not the one advocating making you pay for things that you don't value, and this fact makes it pretty obvious where the essential problem is in all this.

[Shem]

Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?

Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent.

I'll ask, what makes you so sure that a society without government *won't* become just what I believe it will? I base my theory on having done social work, and seeing both A) scummy people who live to take advantage of others without concern for ethics, fairness, or even basic human compassion and, far more common B) desperate people willing to transgress just about any boundary to protect their families. What does your world view say about the existence of these people? How will your society survive them?

[Ernest Brown]

"Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent."

...and if the big rock candy mountain teleports itself next door, I'll have sweets for the rest of my life.

Brother, you dare to say that -Billy- is a "mixture of naivete and arrogance" and then unload a bunch of idiotic ahistorical hooey like that?

[Kyle Bennett]

if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent.

And how do you propose to do that with no authority over it?

[Ernest Brown]

"And how do you propose to do that with no authority over it?"

Shhh, Kyle, pay no attention to the man behind the curtin. Shem is the Great and Powerful Vote!

[Billy Beck]

"I'll ask, what makes you so sure that a society without government *won't* become just what I believe it will?"

All my half-century of experience with people all over the country. You get to cite yours -- I get to cite mine. And the people that I've dealt with are not the manifest aberrations that that social workers deal with. They're the broad span and stretch of this country, everywhere, every day. They're not interested in murder. They're interested in producing values.

So far. Anyone old enough can look around in broad daylight and see that character being leached right out of them, generation by generation, and there is one general reason for that. It's that there is more law and order laying on their backs than ever before in American history.

This society is becoming what you say, right in front of you, because of the thing that you're arguing for.

[Shem]

Brother, you dare to say that -Billy- is a "mixture of naivete and arrogance" and then unload a bunch of idiotic ahistorical hooey like that?

Because I acknowledge that it won't be perfect. Because perfect isn't possible. What I'm advocating is good, which is enough for now.

And the people that I've dealt with are not the manifest aberrations that that social workers deal with.

But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place.

[Kyle Bennett]

But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place.

Do you realize how true that really is? It's just not in the way you think. Government developed of, by, and for those people. They sought a way to get out from under the authority of you, of anybody, and they found it. And yet you continue to forfeit your authority to them.

Next time you do your social work, take a good hard look at those people you describe. They are your masters. Even if they don't realize it themselves.

[Billy Beck]

"...perfect isn't possible."

I've never referred to perfection. That's your word. Observe:

"But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place."

To begin with, that's just nonsense. In more than a thousand years (at the very least), the only entities that could begin to approach making life impossible for everyone else are governments and people fighting and killing to establish them.

Beyond all that, though, I never dispute that "those people exist", because that's not the point. It's a plain fact that they do, and the question is what to do about them. Now, if they make you nervous, then I can see that that's a problem. But you have no right to chain me to it as your solution.

I wouldn't do that to you.

[Ernest Brown]

"Do you realize how true that really is? It's just not in the way you think. Government developed of, by, and for those people. They sought a way to get out from under the authority of you, of anybody, and they found it. And yet you continue to forfeit your authority to them.

Next time you do your social work, take a good hard look at those people you describe. They are your masters. Even if they don't realize it themselves."

Excellent point, Kyle, and one that I was about to bring up. If the existence of the Lumpenproletariat acts as a veto on freedom, then it does so even more under government than in "anarchy." A government limited by the desire for freedom is not going to provide security from parasites (cf. THE GANGS OF NEW YORK), and, likewise, a government whose prime justification is security is not going to care about the violation of the rights of any particular individual. (ditto for Rudy Guiliani's rule of New York City)

[Ernest Brown]

"Because I acknowledge that it won't be perfect. Because perfect isn't possible. What I'm advocating is good, which is enough for now."

No, you didn't. You said:

"Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent."

There is no such thing as an untransgressable rule, no such thing as a "system of checks and balances" that doesn't demand fierce attention and rational oversight, just the sort of attention and oversight that you and your allies here are too tired and bothered to deal with, which is why you "want George to do it."

Well, George is "doing it." He's doing it -real good.-

[dhex]

They SHOULD HAVE also protected our right to put whatever substances we wish into our bodies.

ruthless, though i feel you on this, seeing as they missed out on how some human beings were legal persons and some where legal property was pretty fucked up (to put it as mildly as possible), i think the "you own yourselves" amendment was unfortunately impossible.

[Linda Morgan]

I asked:

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

Shem answered:

Some of them.

So if couldn't get from government what government takes from you (ostensibly) on their behalf, they'd come gunning for you? There's no other way for them to get what they need and there's no realistic way for you to cooperate with others to defend your property and your life against their demands?

I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism.

But you're okay in the face of uncontrolled government? Or maybe you consider that you've got control, along with sufficient say over what is taken from you to placate Bubba.

That's no way to run society.

Society's a pretty big enterprise to "run". I guess that's why government has to be so big.

[C]onsidering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important.

Obedience enforced by the coercive government that you suggest is required to uphold and "run" society is anything but cooperation. Just as the requirement by government for you -- and me -- to fund its payment of protection money to people you fear is anything but the foundation of a free and sustainable society.

[dhex]

So far. Anyone old enough can look around in broad daylight and see that character being leached right out of them, generation by generation, and there is one general reason for that.

because you had to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow?

also have you heard the music its fucking terrible.

in other news we all grow old and eventually we die.

[Mike S.]

Shem....
> Mike S....
> >Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their
> >own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over
> >YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?
>
> Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system
> of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power...
If the *premise* of your argument is that people are corrupt, then how does it automagically become possible for them to create such a thing?

Your argument destroys itself with its own givens.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such. - Diana Hsieh

Full Quote Here

[Ayn_Randian]

If the *premise* of your argument is that people are corrupt, then how does it automagically become possible for them to create such a thing?

Buzzer time...the premise of the argument was "some people" not "all people" are corrupt.

Despite Beckster's wide and far travels and his overwhelming pentatarian cred, there are some people out there who are monsters. Actually there are a lot of them.

[Billy Beck]

I was arguing with Diana long before you ever heard her name, and she and her sketch of Rand on this are dead wrong. They're both just as unilaterally presumptuous as any government ever has been.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ayn_Randian wrote:

"Do any of you anarcho-folks even realize that Rand supported the military (see: Rand's Address to USMA) the courts and the police?"

Ayn Rand definitely supported a voluntarily financed military, court, and police system, and so would I. She stated her position clearly in The Virtue of Selfishness:

"In a fully free society, taxation-or, to be exact, payment for governmental services-would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government-the police, the armed forces, the law courts-are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

I concur.

[Ayn_Randian]

I was arguing with Diana long before you ever heard her name

Well, aren't you just Mr. Popular. Any more name-dropping you care to engage in, Beckster? How is the fact that you've been arguing with her for a long time relevant? Maybe you're just very stupid?

she and her sketch of Rand on this are dead wrong. They're both just as unilaterally presumptuous as any government ever has been.

That's an assertion, and one you haven't seen to fit to prove. So, until I hear a better argument out of you, I'll go with Diana's version, thanks.

[URKOBOLD\'s CADDY]

BILLY BILLY BILLY.

THERE IS A COUNTRY CLUB WHERE YOU'RE NEEDED TO PUTT THE WINNING SHOT.

OH - BILLY BAROO, NEVER MIND.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Shem wrote:

"It's so cute to see people who are too effete to defend themselves from society turn their weakness into a virtue by refusing to even try. Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces."

I own two semi-automatic pistols and one semi-automatic rifle, and with those tools I can defend life and property against the odd criminal or two.

However, you are correct about one thing: I am not capable of defending life and property against "society" at large. For example, if a sheriff arrives at my door to evict me from my home because I refuse to pay for goods and services consumed by others, my three guns are useless unless I aim to commit suicide-by-cop.

Certainly that makes me "effete" in the sense that I am society's bitch. I could try withholding the sexual favors, or maybe biting down real hard one day, but the cost would be enormous.

"Nobody enters this valley by faking reality in any way whatsoever." (John Galt)

[Ayn_Randian]

Yeah, Patrick, Rand's got a lot of contradictory stuff to say about anarchism, doesn't she?

Anyway, I'm not going to rehash the whole "anarchy/miniarchy" argument. T

The summary quote: "The problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is. Ask the Palestinians and the Israelis to define "rights," "force," "property," "justice," "self-defense," and "protection." Or ask the IRA and the British. Or George III and George Washington." ~Bidinotto~.

[Billy Beck]

"Any more name-dropping you care to engage in, Beckster?"

You line 'em up, and I'll knock 'em down.

"How is the fact that you've been arguing with her for a long time relevant?"

It's at least as relevant as your rote-blind appeal to authority. If you have a brain in your head and an argument to make, then step up and do it.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ayn_Randian wrote:

"Yeah, Patrick, Rand's got a lot of contradictory stuff to say about anarchism, doesn't she? "

No. First, she does not contradict herself, and second, she is not talking about anarchism. She simply opposes the initiation of force against other individuals, as do I.

[Ernest Brown]

If Hsieh wants to play that epistemic agnosticism card in a rationally consistent fashion, she would leave herself open to the just countercharge by collectivists that,by -her- argument, collective judgement is better than individual judgement.

If she wants to restrict it to force, she has to explain why force is different from say, education, in that the collective is better at determining the truth of force usage than the individual.

[J sub D]

Wow, Billy's still here? Hey, Billy boy, who came first in the inane anarchist circle jerk?

[Billy Beck]

Bullshit.

[Ayn_Randian]

Try again, Ernest. She's saying that because violent events are open to differing interpretations, and that violence is a threat to people, there's no way to leave it up to one person to decide what was self-defense and what was aggression.

I don't see any way to link Force and Economics without disaster. They should be categorically separated, else I decide to just up and murder you and claim self-defense with no one the wiser.

[Ayn_Randian]

And what individual would you trust enough to task with parsing what violent acts are justified and what acts are not?

[Ernest Brown]

"Try again, Ernest. She's saying that because violent events are open to differing interpretations, and that violence is a threat to people, there's no way to leave it up to one person to decide what was self-defense and what was aggression."

Wrong, -ANY- event is "open to differing interpretations," not just violent ones. If you are going to ride that hobbyhorse, ride it all the way to Collectivism Town and be honest with yourself.

The role of parents in education is "open to differing interpretations," therefore, in order to exercise its superior collective rationality, the state should have sole control over the type and manner of the education of children.

[Jake Boone]

Boy, did I come late to this thread. I just feel the need to point out that I have anarchist sympathies myself. I think most people need to feel more comfortable with minarchy before there'll be any chance of guiding them the rest of the way down that road.

That said, jumping into a thread on a largely libertarian board and excoriating people for not already thinking exactly like you do is a hugely counterproductive exercise (not to mention the unnecessarily rude manner in which you make the perfect the enemy of the good).

So well done, Billy and friends. You've made it that much harder to persuade anyone around here, because now "anarchist=asshole" is going to be the first thing that comes to mind for many of these folks.

Goddammit.

[Ayn_Randian]

The role of parents in education is "open to differing interpretations," therefore, in order to exercise its superior collective rationality, the state should have sole control over the type and manner of the education of children.

If the differing ways of educating children were a threat to society. They're not.

Violence, however, is. And you still didn't answer my question: What individual would you trust enough to parse out what's aggression and what's self-defense?

If I wanted to overrun your property with about, oh, five of us carrying M16s wearing OTVs, helmets and wielding grenades and automatic weapons, guess what? You're not going to be able to stop me...but the National Guard can. I'd get away with it about, oh, twice until the State stopped me. How long could I go on in an anarcho-capitalist society? Wanna find out?

The only thing constraining people who want to rule you by force is a government accountable to the people. I'm really not in the mood to have to set up concertina wire and land mines just because you're having a temper-tantrum about "teh evil State".

[Ayn_Randian]

First, she does not contradict herself, and second, she is not talking about anarchism.

Wait, if she's lauding voluntary contributions to government only but in "The Nature of Government" has nothing but harshness for anarchism, how is that not a contradiction?

[Ernest Brown]

"If the differing ways of educating children were a threat to society. They're not."

I can think of one highly effective method of teaching, used in our colleges and law schools, that got the originator sentenced to death in a duly sworn court of law. Others have a "differing interpretation" about whether or not "differing ways of educating children...(are)...a threat to society." Are you saying that it is a fallacy of false analogy to equate physical violence against children with the harm that miseducation does to them?

[Ayn_Randian]

It's at least as relevant as your rote-blind appeal to authority.

What authority? If you're referencing that I am quoting arguments from prominent Objectivists, that's not an appeal to authority. It's that they've already thought this through, come up with the arguments and presented them better than I could.

Unless you think that deferring to experts is "appealing to authority", in which case I don't know how you ever get your car fixed.

[Ayn_Randian]

Are you saying that it is a fallacy of false analogy to equate physical violence against children with the harm that miseducation does to them?

Yes, and I can honestly say that I regret coming at you like I have everyone else. You actually seem interested in discussion.

I await your response.

[Ernest Brown]

"Yes"

Are you sure? I seem to recall a very eloquent denunciation of the collectivist justification for progressive education that makes just that analogy.

"...and I can honestly say that I regret coming at you like I have everyone else. You actually seem interested in discussion.

I await your response."

Well, to answer your question about the 5 guys with military hardware, I'd either have to accept the injustice or figure out a way to get back my land with the help of non-parasitic entities or friends. That is at least an existential solution, which is not available to me in this post-KELO era if the five guys -themselves- have NG uniforms on.

[Ayn_Randian]

I seem to recall a very eloquent denunciation of the collectivist justification for progressive education that makes just that analogy.

Again - good reference, but violence to the mind can be undone; death cannot be undone.

I'd either have to accept the injustice or figure out a way to get back my land with the help of non-parasitic entities or friends.

Yes, but if it were 50 men? 500? 5,000?

The practical implications of what you're saying means perpetual warfare. Granted, the State can take your land, in this post Kelo era, for any reason it wants. But you have to ask yourself, then, why doesn't it do so? After all, if we're all as powerless against the State as you're implying, why aren't we slaves right now?

Part of the answer lies in the Second Amendment and the practical impossibility of subjugating an armed populace that enjoys its freedoms. But the other part lies in, loathe though you may be to admit this, the accountability of the State to the people and the outrage the people of America would exert upon that entity if such a drastic step were taken.

Of course, you could say that the State is slowly eroding and stripping our rights away, nefarious in its motives and careful not to move to quickly as to not alert the populace to its intent. But then, that's what being a libertarian is all about, right? Slowing that encroachment?

So, then, the question lies in whether working in the system is a viable solution. I believe it is; otherwise, you should start arming yourself and get ready. Of course, you can do both...that's the freedom of America, right?

[Mike S.]

Jake Boone: So well done, Billy and friends. You've made it that much harder to persuade anyone around here....

The drooling beast is not swayed by reason.

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian: But the other part lies in, loathe though you may be to admit this, the accountability of the State to the people and the outrage the people of America would exert upon that entity if such a drastic step were taken.

Shorter version: "Yay voting! It will save us from the government we voted for last time!"

[Ayn_Randian]

The drooling beast is not swayed by reason.

I'm not sure where you went wrong with Objectivism, Mike, but I sure hope you get the help you need. You're one ugly, ugly individual.

[Billy Beck]

"What individual would you trust enough to parse out what's aggression and what's self-defense?"

The end logic of self-defense by committee is that there is no self-defense. Now, look around you: that's about where we are in America today.

"Self-appointed" suits me just fine.

"If I wanted to overrun your property with about, oh, five of us carrying M16s wearing OTVs, helmets and wielding grenades and automatic weapons, guess what? You're not going to be able to stop me."

Not in my neighborhood. In any case, you have no way of knowing that, and there is nothing necessarily less likely about that than your mounting that weight of force, to begin with.

And your "mood" is completely impertinent.

[Billy Beck]

"The practical implications of what you're saying means perpetual warfare."

"There are no conflicts of interest between rational men." Run that through your library and tell all the outraged who wrote it. Look: there will never be an end to evil. Some people will never grasp rational principles. But what you're arguing is an implicit call to just give up on the whole idea in general, not to mention standing in direct defiance of centuries, now, of actual fact in this country.

[Ayn_Randian]

horter version: "Yay voting! It will save us from the government we voted for last time!"

Well, Mike, you're just going to have to take that up with the Founding Fathers, who saw fit to write the Constitution. You know, the American Republic? The thing Ayn Rand called "the greatest American achievement". Yeah buddy, she called instituting a GOVERNMENT the greatest American achievement.

So, complicated system of republicanism and minarchy (but according to you, EVIL GOVERNMENT!!!1!) = America

Anarchy = Somalia

I guess the results speak for themselves.

[Ayn_Randian]

Not in my neighborhood. In any case, you have no way of knowing that, and there is nothing necessarily less likely about that than your mounting that weight of force, to begin with.

What if what restrained me from mounting said assault was my fear of punishment and loss of freedom/life that the State can and will inflict on me? And as for not knowing if you're going to be able to stop me? Have you ever heard of reconnaissance?

But what you're arguing is an implicit call to just give up on the whole idea in general, not to mention standing in direct defiance of centuries, now, of actual fact in this country.

What you're arguing is metapolitical; in order for the system to function, everyone has to be rational, or at least enough people do that the irrational/violent actors won't take advantage or make a significant impact.

People saw fit to delegate part of their authority to a government to defend us from outside threats. We wouldn't have time for art, philosophy, innovation or any other wonderful and good thing if everyone had to perpetually have enough arms and firepower to ensure that their neighbor remained polite.

[Ernest Brown]

"Again - good reference, but violence to the mind can be undone; death cannot be undone."

AR, you've narrowed the field from violence in general to fatal violence. As Rand herself argues, violence can exist on the intellectual plane as well as the physical. In any case, it is just as possible to destroy a mind pass the point of recovery as it is a face, thus we need the state to ensure that children are not taught wrong concepts that will destroy their ability to reason. After all, it would be arrogant to assume that there is one individual point of view that is superior to another. You have already admitted your ignorance about determining whether or not retaliatory violence is rational. Why is your individual viewpoint on education any better?

[Ernest Brown]

"past the point of recovery"

[Ayn_Randian]

In any case, it is just as possible to destroy a mind pass the point of recovery as it is a face

That's a contentious point and, if I may say, one I wouldn't overwhelmingly endorse, in that the science on damaged thought processes isn't even nearly advanced as physical medicine. After all, 30 years ago, homosexuality was considered a sign of a damaged mind and 70 years ago lobotomies were regular cures for the mind.

Shorter me: Physical damage is extremely obvious and apparent, whereas the concepts that are mentally damaging are nebulous and contentious.

If, however, it were discovered that teaching Principle or Concept X were shown to literally cause as much commensurate brain damage as an axe to the face were to cause physical damage, would you not support the use of force to ban teaching Concept X?

My example sounds ridiculous on the face of it, but that's because it is silly to talk about teaching concepts in the same terms as hacking off limbs. They just don't equate.

Unfortunately, Ernest, as surprisingly refreshing and mind-stimulating I have found this conversation, it is 0100 here in Baghdad and I must retire. I have sent you an e-mail encouraging you to continue this conversation via that medium. Thanks for taking the more polite, respectful route. (Billy, get your notepad out and learn something).

VR, AR.

[Billy Beck]

"What if what restrained me from mounting said assault was my fear of punishment and loss of freedom/life that the State can and will inflict on me?"

That would make you different from every murderer ever incarcerated on the charge by the state. Look at the record for how well that's worked out.

"...in order for the system to function, everyone has to be rational..."

That is no more true than under a statist regime, and very arguably less so.

"People saw fit to delegate part of their authority to a government to defend us from outside threats."

I don't care. They might have asked me about delegating my authority before they put that categorical "We, the People..." down to include me the way they did.

(Brown -- watch: I'm about to get Spiro Agnew for my trouble.)

[Billy Beck]

"Billy, get your notepad out and learn something."

Drop dead puking and see if I care.

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian: Ayn_Randian | December 16, 2007, 4:31pm | #
horter version: "Yay voting! It will save us from the government we voted for last time!"

Well, Mike, you're just going to have to take that up with the Founding Fathers, who saw fit to write the Constitution. You know, the American Republic? The thing Ayn Rand called "the greatest American achievement". Yeah buddy, she called instituting a GOVERNMENT the greatest American achievement.

Which is completely beside the point of they had no right to do that to me -- because that fucking monstrosity wants to tear the meat off my bones while brainless assholes like you stand around and *cheer*.

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian wrote: People saw fit....

Ambiguous Collective logical fallacy.

[Jake Boone]

Jake Boone: So well done, Billy and friends. You've made it that much harder to persuade anyone around here....

The drooling beast is not swayed by reason.

In that case, I suppose I have to ask... why are you here? If nobody outside your tiny band of revolutionaries can possibly be brought to understand the benefits of self-ownership, why bother engaging with outsiders at all? How, in fact, were you ever persuaded that anarchism was the best of all possible systems?

[Mike S.]

Jake Boone: If nobody outside your tiny band of revolutionaries can possibly be....

Is it possible you could ask a question without wrapping it up in gratuitous rubbish?

...brought to understand the benefits of self-ownership, why bother engaging with outsiders at all?

Because I realize that everyone who, prior to my engagement when them, denies that concept while simultaneously clinging fervently to the idea that the shirt on his back is his -- is *insane* from the get-go. I.e., the drooling beast. Reason does not penetrate a broken brain.

....that anarchism was the best of all possible systems?

Anarchism is no more a (political) "system" than atheism is a religion.

[Jake Boone]

Is it possible you could ask a question without wrapping it up in gratuitous rubbish?

...asks the man who has just claimed that everyone on the planet -- except, of course, for the tiny minority of people who believe exactly as he -- is stark, raving mad.

Because I realize that everyone who, prior to my engagement when them, denies that concept while simultaneously clinging fervently to the idea that the shirt on his back is his -- is *insane* from the get-go. I.e., the drooling beast. Reason does not penetrate a broken brain.

I ask again, then; how were you persuaded? I assume you weren't born with the understanding of anarchy fully-formed in your head, so you must have encountered ideas supporting anarchy at some point before you became an anarchist, right? How, then, did you -- at the time, apparently a member of the class of "drooling beasts" -- become the paragon of rational thought that you are today? Clearly, as you've stated, reason doesn't work... so was it an appeal to emotion? Psychoactive drugs? What?

Anarchism is no more a (political) "system" than atheism is a religion.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I didn't actually use the word "political." But thanks for inserting it on my behalf so that you could point that out.

[Ayn_Randian]

I don't care. They might have asked me about delegating my authority before they put that categorical "We, the People..." down to include me the way they did.

Perhaps you can go somewhere there is no government.

No really, we won't mind if you go. Just send a postcard or something.

Minarchial republicanism = America
Anarchy = Somalia

I'll bet my next paycheck you're here for a long, long time.

[Ayn_Randian]

Which is completely beside the point of they had no right to do that to me -- because that fucking monstrosity wants to tear the meat off my bones

You fancy yourself deluded m'boy. It must be awfully nice living in safety and comfort hyperbolically screaming about the government "tear[ing] the meat off your bones".

You numbfucks must be those guys that believe that America got to where it is because it won the natural lottery in resources and goods. After all, its system of government is nothing but an organized gang of thieves, so fuck, it couldn't be the freest system that helped propel America to #1, could it?

[Ayn_Randian]

What's most galling to me is the rank hypocrisy and chickenshit war-hawking you guys are doing.

"The State's so terrible!...it makes me plead for life on my knees and rips the flesh from my bones! I don't even own my shirt!"

Well, you bed-wetting little pussies, maybe it's time you got out there and physically defended yourself. Arm yourselves and start the revolution. Quit letting yourselves get raped and pillaged by the State and strike a blow for freedom. Enough of this bluster and bullshit, get out there and take action, you big bunch of whiners.

The rest of us, however, will not be sad at your deaths. Really, we won't.

[Ernest Brown]

AR,

"You numbfucks must be those guys that believe that America got to where it is because it won the natural lottery in resources and goods. After all, its system of government is nothing but an organized gang of thieves, so fuck, it couldn't be the freest system that helped propel America to #1, could it?"

The richness of America came from an imperfectly realized conception of freedom, which is currently being eroded as we speak.

The real wealth of a culture is not its raw materials, money or gold, but its intellectual and conceptual capital. That's the real message of "The Comprachicos." It is a Bastiat "what is seen/what is not seen" situation. Just because you don't directly see the scarring of the rational facility doesn't mean that the social outcomes don't have the same ultimate cash value.

You deprecated the notion that those traumas to reason can be equated to physical abuse, but, when you undermine the very intellectual basis for freedom you create slavery -in fact- without the need for too much overt violence.

Insofar as the Constitution is a commendable document, it is so because it recognizes the a priori rights of the human individual, and it failed and continues to fail when it compromises that vision. "The Second Amendment" doesn't -mean- anything, it is just words on a hemp roll that are as worthless as the fine promises of "rights" were in the old Soviet constitution. Without the appreciation of one's own right to exist and the conceptual clarity to enunciate and defend that right, it expresses a nullity.

[Ron Good]

Ayn Randian: you wrote: "I'd get away with it about, oh, twice until the State stopped me. How long could I go on in an anarcho-capitalist society? Wanna find out?"

Actually, yes.

But...your argument is that I need fear anarcho-capitalism because of...you???

[Ernest Brown]

"(Brown -- watch: I'm about to get Spiro Agnew for my trouble.)"

It appears so.

[Ron Good]

Ayn Randian: You wrote: ",em>And what individual would you trust enough to task with parsing what violent acts are justified and what acts are not?

Me.

Everybody else can make up their own mind.

[Billy Beck]

Tell me you didn't see it coming, too, E.

"Love it or leave it." As if he owns it.

When is this pretense ever going to end?

[Jake Boone]

Billy et al,

Seriously, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Are you just trying to piss off everyone who isn't already an anarchist? How does this advance your goals in any way?

[Ayn_Randian]

When is this pretense ever going to end?

It will end when you man the hell up and start shooting cops and politicians.

When are you going to start doing it, Billy-boy?

[Ayn_Randian]

"Love it or leave it." As if he owns it.

I'm sorry, do you have a rebuttal or are you just going to make catty, snarky comments like a woman?

When do you start popping cops, Billy?

[Ayn_Randian]

The real wealth of a culture is not its raw materials, money or gold, but its intellectual and conceptual capital.

Agreed - the question lies in whether an individual or a culture can properly maximize their intellectual capital while continually maintaining enough to arms to keep their neighbors polite.

I still note that the countries where anarchy reigns have yet to see fit to conform to the anarchists' floating abstraction. I have the concrete evidence on my side here: America became the greatest nation on earth because its government is explicitly dedicated to individual rights, and the Supreme Law of the Land recognizes this.

I imagine I will grow old and die before the anarchy of Somalia propels it to #1. Somalia is, actually, a great case study in how anarchy does not work. Multiple warlords battling for territory who, by virtue of their perpetual warfare, had weakened themselves so much that they did not have enough strength to battle an outside threat: The Islamic Courts Union. The ICU rolled them up pretty quickly, and had it not been for the Ethiopian Army and help from an AC-130 gunship, we'd have yet another Islamic fundamentalist state.

The perpetual warfare that the implementation of anarcho-capitalism would lead to would produce similar results here. The perpetual warfare that would unleash on American streets in the presence of a power vacuum would stunt American growth and innovation and, in all likelihood, lead to an invasion from a foreign country (under the guise of "stabilization") and our consequent subjugation.

Billy, you can accuse me of being a jingoist all you like, but "America" is a nation-state, with borders, a military and a government. Your advocacy of the complete and total elimnation of the American government would, in reality, lead to the elimination of the American nation-state. So, yeah, even though you don't want to call it that, you're not really a fan of America as a nation, because you hate nations.

That's why I said "Love it or Leave it", because you're fundamentally opposed to the very idea of the United States.

[Mike S.]

Jake Boone: I ask again, then; how were you persuaded?

Nobody persuaded me, Jake.

Ayn_Randian: When do you start popping cops, Billy?

If the shooting starts, who will you support?

[Mike S.]

A_R, when you define Somolia as anarcho-capitalist, you're a lying piece of shit.

Billy, you can accuse me of being a jingoist all you like, but "America" is a nation-state, with borders, a military and a government. Your advocacy of the complete and total elimnation of the American government would, in reality, lead to the elimination of the American nation-state. So, yeah, even though you don't want to call it that, you're not really a fan of America as a nation, because you hate nations.

And you're not an Objectivist.

You're a *fascist*.

[Ayn_Randian]

A_R, when you define Somolia as anarcho-capitalist, you're a lying piece of shit.

Temper, temper, little one. Shouldn't the elimination of the government in Somalia have naturally led to the your most optimal form of societal organization? Or are you admitting it doesn't quite work that way?

And you're not an Objectivist.

You're a *fascist*.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yikes - post not completed.

And you're not an Objectivist.

You're a *fascist*

Yet another unjustified, unproven, irrational ad hominem. Did your mother not love you enough as a child or something?

If the shooting starts, who will you support?

Well, let's see...you've called a fascist, a second-hander, wished death upon me...I wonder why on earth I would have no compunction in joining a side.

And why "if the shooting starts..."? Go ahead and start it yourself, little one. I mean, you're the victim here! Get on down and start handing out some "retributive justice" to the ones who initiated force against you!

Or are you a blustery chickenshit?

[Ayn_Randian]

Nobody persuaded me, Jake.

Just reasoned yourself into it by the power of your mind, eh? I doubt it...you can barely refrain from name-calling those with whom you disagree. I sense that if your reasoning power could be harnessed, it might not even keep a 40-watt bulb alight.

[Jake Boone]

Nobody persuaded me, Jake.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it appears that you're claiming that the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, sprang, like Athena, fully-formed from your head. But I could be wrong.

What I'm asking is how you went from State A (not an anarchist, and therefore insane and irrational) to State B (an anarchist, and therefore sane and rational).

(I suspect we're going to find a logical contradiction at the bottom of all this, but I'm open to being proven wrong.)

[Billy Beck]

"It will end when you man the hell up and start shooting cops and politicians.

When are you going to start doing it, Billy-boy?"

Why do you have to lie like that?

[Ayn_Randian]

Why do you have to lie like that?

Perhaps it won't end, you're right, but I can't understand (I mean it this time, I cannot!) why, if you believe the state has virtually made you a slave (as your rhetoric indicates) you don't just pull a Spartacus and start a rebellion. Go out on your feet instead of your knees, and all that.

After all, you'd be in the moral right: the state, according to you, has initiated force against you. It would be moral and just for your to deliver retribution. You could claim self-defense.

So what's the hold-up? Make a stand, man.

[Billy Beck]

"That's why I said 'Love it or Leave it', because you're fundamentally opposed to the very idea of the United States."

That's right. Nothing about any of that, however, confers on you the least sort of authority to determine who's who here.

For fifty years, I have cultivated my love of my native land and everything about it except people who think they get to address it in the terms that you did. I didn't take that from Nixon's freaks, I didn't take it from rank commies in Usenet who ran that bullshit on me a generation later, and you count for exactly as much as they do.

[Billy Beck]

"Perhaps it won't end, you're right..."

Bullshit. You're just flat-out lying again with your shape-shifting from "Beck's gonna go on an AK-47 rampage" to that hopelessly craven little "it".

Who do you think you're fooling?

"...but I can't understand..."

I think that's not true. You could if you put your mind to it honestly, but you can't afford that.

[Kyle Bennett]

You could if you put your mind to it honestly, but you can't afford that.

That's right, he can't afford it. So how long are you going to keep giving the moocher his alms?

[Jake Boone]

Billy on Dec 14, at 2:40 PM:

If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

Billy on Dec 17, at 10:06 AM:

Nothing about any of that, however, confers on you the least sort of authority to determine who's who here.

It's getting kind of hard to breathe in here with all the irony fumes.

[Kyle Bennett]

Jake,

Bullshit!

I just figured you could use another quote from Billy.

[Kyle Bennett]

From Jake: So well done, Billy and friends. You've made it that much harder to persuade anyone around here ... Seriously, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Don't try to pretend you were accomplishing anything.

How does this advance your goals in any way?

Let me fix that typo for you, you really meant to say: "how does this advance my goals in any way?"

[Jake Boone]

Kyle,

Despite the sentence structure, your last post boils down to a second-grader's "I know you are, but what am I?"

Any chance you'll stop rewriting my comments and actually answer the question I asked?

[Kyle Bennett]

Jake,

The question you asked is not the question you want answered. You couldn't care less how my (as one of the members of "and friends") behavior accomplishes my goals, you only care that it interferes with yours. You said so yourself.

[Ayn_Randian]

Kyle continues to contribute to Comcast. When are you going to throw those theft-enablers out of your home and your computer, Kyle?

So how long are you going to keep giving the moocher his alms?

You are more than free to leave any time you want.

Billy, quit dancing around and state plainly: why have you not started dishing retribution to the State, those initiators of force against you? Why aren't you killing agents of those who have violated your natural right to free exercise and self-governance? Answer plainly; state your case.

Right now the way I see it, you want it both ways: you want to bitch about how the State makes you live life on your knees and throw fits about it to everyone within earshot, but you're too scared to do something about it. Anything less than a full, intelligent refutation, I'll take as confirmation of my suspicions about you.

You want to play tough guy, but when it comes down to it, you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Coward.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR, again, I wasn't talking to you.

[Jake Boone]

The question you asked is not the question you want answered.

Oooookay, Mr. Internet Mind Reader. Since you claim to know what I care about better than I do (a particularly strange conceit for an anarcho-capitalist), how about this question: What are your goals here?

[Ayn_Randian]

AR, again, I wasn't talking to you.

So what? Like I said, if we're just moochers here sucking down all your good ideas and energy, then feel free to get the hell on down the road.

[Billy Beck]

"Why have you not started dishing retribution to the State, those initiators of force against you?"

That's never going to solve the general problem. That's why. I explained a lot of this in the article that I linked and in which you said I was lying. Well, that's not true, and I cannot imagine what a person to whom fact do not matter might expect, at that point.

[Billy Beck]

Boone, you idiot: there are two categorically different concepts in the two lines that you quoted. For you to draw the equivocation that you did goes far beyond "irony", and all the way into abject stupidity.

[Kyle Bennett]

What are your goals here?

To talk to the people that matter.

[Ayn_Randian]

That's never going to solve the general problem.

Excuses, excuses. You're a victim, you have the right to retaliate.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ayn_Randian wrote:

"
Wait, if she's lauding voluntary contributions to government only but in "The Nature of Government" has nothing but harshness for anarchism, how is that not a contradiction?"

Simple.

1. She does not advocate anarchism. She wants a government.

2. She defines a proper government as an agency which protects man's rights to life and property.

3. Therefore, a proper government must not initiate the use of force against the life and property of others.

No contradiction exists there. In fact, statement 3 follows logically from statement 2.

This is why Ayn Rand supports the existence of government, but opposes compulsory taxation and conscription. It is utterly simple.

In an excerpt from John Galt's speech, Ayn Rand clearly defines all aspects of her philosophy of government in one handy paragraph:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man's deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
"

[Kyle Bennett]

feel free to get the hell on down the road.

That wouldn't be nearly enough.

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy,

That's never going to solve the general problem.

What is the general problem?

[Ayn_Randian]

Patrick, that's an interesting observation. Of course, in order to voluntarily fall under a government, one would have to sign a contract stating that they chose X government at some point in their life. Then, however, we would run into the problem of those with minds who are not able to assent to be governed. What is to be done about them? And at what age does one volunteer to be governed anyway?

"Why have you not started dishing retribution to the State, those initiators of force against you?"

That's never going to solve the general problem.

Well, I guess that you have given the violence of the State sanction of the victim. No wonder they won't stop persecuting you; you let it happen.

[Kyle Bennett]

Patrick,

See what you get for all the effort of making an interesting observation? Craven groveling for initiation of force on behalf of the least deserving, on the grounds that their minds are incapable of benefitting from what is demanded for them.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ayn_Randian wrote:

After all, you'd be in the moral right: the state, according to you, has initiated force against you.

Correction: the state has in fact initiated force against me. It is not "according to me" or a matter of opinion.

Just to be clear, I asked the local property tax collector lady what would happen if I refused to pay the $2800 charged to me for educational services I did not order or use. She said (very politely) that they would sell my house to pay it. I asked her what would happen if I remained on the property, and she said the sheriff would evict me. I then conceded that she had the upper hand regarding the use of force, and I paid the amount demanded.

She and her hired enforcers have clearly initiated force against me, in order to support the Tenth Plank of the Communist Manifesto. When I pointed out that this practice was rank socialism, she agreed with me and said that it should not be done this way.

It would be moral and just for your to deliver retribution. You could claim self-defense.

So what's the hold-up? Make a stand, man.

I do not advocate retribution. At most I advocate defending your property from those who usurp it. However, even that could be suicidal in the face of overwhelming force.

As for challenging Billy Beck to "make a stand," let me tell you one thing, man: Billy Beck has already made more of a stand than any pusillanimous poster on this board, including me, and he's done it for decades, at considerable cost to himself.

If you don't like freedom, you should leave the country.

[Ayn_Randian]

Craven groveling for initiation of force on behalf of the least deserving

Where did I grovel again? Is groveling usually phrased in the form of a question?

Quit pontificating and answer the damn question already.

And, oh yeah, I wasn't talking to you, Kyle.

[Kyle Bennett]

Quit pontificating and answer the damn question already.

Ask an honest question and I just might.

[Ayn_Randian]

However, even that could be suicidal in the face of overwhelming force.

Well, Sanction of the Victim, then. No wonder the State walks all over you; you're too afraid to stand up and fight.

"Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us" - Ayn Rand

So gets to Shrugging already.

Billy Beck has already made more of a stand than any pusillanimous poster on this board, including me, and he's done it for decades, at considerable cost to himself.

Well, he did it to himself, for himself, so I have no sympathy....unless you're saying he actually took a stand for others, but I can't imagine that would be true.

[Billy Beck]

"Excuses, excuses. You're a victim, you have the right to retaliate."

You don't believe that for one second.

Your cynicism is almost breathtaking. There really is no way to take you seriously.

[Ayn_Randian]

Kyle,

How does one assent to be governed when one lacks the rational faculty to make any form of meaningful assent?

[Ayn_Randian]

You don't believe that for one second.

No, but you should, Mr. Slave-to-the-State. The fact that you do not shows that ultimately your principles fall by the wayside in the face of your fear of death.

Your cynicism is almost breathtaking. There really is no way to take you seriously.

That's a new one. I'm generally considered the optimist 'round these parts. How am I cynical? And why are you continuing to sanction the State's victimization of you?

[Billy Beck]

"Well, he did it to himself, for himself, so I have no sympathy....unless you're saying he actually took a stand for others, but I can't imagine that would be true."

Wow. This -- Kantian ethics -- from someone who presumes his net.moniker.

How much more contemptible can this get?

[Jake Boone]

Kyle,

So the "people who matter," plainly, include Ayn_Randian. Who are the other "people who matter" on H&R, in your opinion?

[Billy Beck]

"So gets to Shrugging already."

I have.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR,

How am I cynical?

Since that's as close as your likely to get to an honest question, I'll give you an answer, though I know you'll throw up all the strawmen you can in order to avoid the stark self-knowledge you're being - probably undeservedly - offered.

Your view of human nature is one of irredeemable malice and incompetence, such that the only hope for avoiding continual low-level brutality is the imposition of periodic high-level brutality interspersed with periods characterized merely by fear and oppression and only occasional violence.

Your belief in not believing in human nature means that we can't even begin to apply rationality to solving the problem, because the basis of rationality, that everything that is is something, is blanked-out.

Your stated assertion that the only response to oppression is blind and undirected violence of the most brutal nature one is capable of is either a result of or the cause of the above beliefs. Most likely, it's a vicious spiral into deeper and deeper cynicism.

Your beliefs go so far as to declare that we all must have force initiated against us because those that are incapable of free will need to have their free will protected, at not only our material expense, but at the expense of collectively maintaining the fantasy that they have free will after all. What this amounts to is the plaintive cry that since some people are incapable of free will, then none of us should have it.

It's a dark, cynical hole you're in. Now go hide in it and pretend you never saw any of this.

And just change your nom to Jim Taggart, already, will ya?

[Kyle Bennett]

Jake,

plainly

*sigh* If only.

[Jake Boone]

Boone, you idiot: there are two categorically different concepts in the two lines that you quoted.

By gum, you're correct; there are two different concepts there. Now that I've mischaracterized your argument and pissed you off, let me berate you for not subscribing to my exact philosophy. Do you suppose that'll work to win converts?

Your rhetorical strategy is fantastic.

[Billy Beck]

Let me explain something to you very simply.

It doesn't matter whether you like me, and I am not about to try buying rational conviction of crucial principles with a bright yellow smiley-face.

[Jake Boone]

Billy,

Do you, then, not subscribe to your compatriot Mike S.'s assertion that non-anarchists are immune to reason and rationality?

[Ron Good]

Ayn Randian: You wrote: "Well, he did it to himself, for himself, so I have no sympathy....unless you're saying he actually took a stand for others, but I can't imagine that would be true"

Ah, so you're an "Ayn Randian" who explicitly states that altruism would be the only thing you would recognize as giving value to, Billy's actions.

If Billy took his stand for himself: bad. If he took it for others: good.

Interesting take on Objectivism. AR.

[Billy Beck]

"What is the general problem?"

You know what the general problem is.

And I could set up an ugly death in a hail of cops' bullets this very afternoon. It would be the easiest thing in the world, but it would not address the fundamentals of the thing.

[Billy Beck]

"Do you, then, not subscribe to your compatriot Mike S.'s assertion that non-anarchists are immune to reason and rationality?"

To begin with: try to grasp the basic fact that everyone here is authorized to speak strictly for themselves.

The answer to you question: No. I do not.

[Jake Boone]

It doesn't matter whether you like me, and I am not about to try buying rational conviction of crucial principles with a bright yellow smiley-face.

In other words, you'd rather be a grandstanding internet tough guy prick then actually try using a modicum of politeness and persuasion. Gotcha.

[Billy Beck]

"In other words,..."

In fact, they're your words.

[Jake Boone]

Well, feel free to point out where I've mischaracterized you, then. I'm sure it'll be good for a few laughs.

[Kyle Bennett]

You know what the general problem is.

I'm pretty sure I do, but I also think we don't come to the same answer - and there's very few people whose disagreement makes me think twice, with purpose.

My answer is that for a long time, we've all been giving the moochers exactly what they need, to our great - maybe fatal - detriment. And that our money is absolutely the least of it.

[Jennifer]

It doesn't matter whether you like me

You're right, Billy: it doesn't matter if people like you. But if you're trying to persuade them to see things your way it does matter if they respect you, and I've not seen a single reason here why anyone should. I gave your blog a quick once-over and you keep talking about how you're some elderly guy--over half a century old!--so why do you keep acting the way I did when I was around nine? "Nyaah nyaah" might make you feel better, but it won't make anyone else smack their foreheads and say "By God, he's right!"

[Billy Beck]

Well, sure... although -- given everything that it means -- I wouldn't characterize our money as "the least of it". It's actually a very, very big deal, Kyle.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra underscored the essence here when he pointed out:

"The most subversive political implication of 'Atlas Shrugged', is that individual freedom is possible only to those who are strong enough, psychologically and morally, to withdraw their sanction from any system that coercively thrives off their productive energies."

("The Russian Radical", 1995, p. 302)

The only way this thing will ever be brought under rational control is by starving it into submission.

[Billy Beck]

"But if you're trying to persuade them to see things your way it does matter if they respect you,..."

It's about the ideas, Jennifer, and I am not interested in people who stop at fashion. My respect goes out to thinkers, and my approach has gone far in weeding them out over a long time.

I don't need your approval. It's not about me, and anyone who thinks it is, is simply not hacking the course.

[Jennifer]

It's about the ideas, Jennifer, and I am not interested in people who stop at fashion.

Yeah, the Hawaiian-shirt photo on your blog indicates as much. But I am sincerely curious: in all of history, there has never, ever been a single person who's said "Wow, now that you've called me an idiot I realize that you are totally right and I am totally wrong." What is it that makes you believe your debating techniques will be the exception to this rule?

[Billy Beck]

"in all of history, there has never, ever been a single person who's said "Wow, now that you've called me an idiot I realize that you are totally right and I am totally wrong."

You're dead wrong about that.

"What is it that makes you believe your debating techniques will be the exception to this rule?"

Experience.

[Jake Boone]

My respect goes out to thinkers, and my approach has gone far in weeding them out over a long time.

I'll bet it has!

[Jennifer]

You're dead wrong about that.

Examples?

[Billy Beck]

They're all mine. And I don't believe that you'll take that seriously.

[Elliot]

in all of history, there has never, ever been a single person who's said "Wow, now that you've called me an idiot I realize that you are totally right and I am totally wrong."

Perhaps not, if you limit yourself to cases in which the name-caller made no other arguments.

But that isn't what is going on here, is it?

Bad ideas do not deserve respect, particularly when the implications of those ideas are plainly so destructive. Why should I be sweet and polite to someone who thinks that kicking a grandmother to the curb for not paying taxes is justified?

[Billy Beck]

"I'll bet it has!"

That's adorably cute, Boone, but you know exactly what I meant. (Look: when someone says they're "weeding out" their garden, nobody actually thinks that they're tearing up the flowers. You know this. So, stop it.) And: I got you to think about your own conflation of two obviously different concepts.

Here's a clue: nobody has to be an idiot.

And there is a great deal of room in my philosophy for redemption.

[Jennifer]

Perhaps not, if you limit yourself to cases in which the name-caller made no other arguments.

Where are these other arguments? All I've seen Billy do is crow about his obvious (to him) superiority.

[Billy Beck]

Elliot: that's exactly right.

I earn my right of invective.

[Billy Beck]

If what you just said is true, Jennifer ("all I've seen"), then you're simply not paying attention because it does not represent the facts.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

I wrote:

Billy Beck has already made more of a stand than any pusillanimous poster on this board, including me, and he's done it for decades, at considerable cost to himself.

Jim_Taggart wrote:

Well, he did it to himself, for himself, so I have no sympathy....unless you're saying he actually took a stand for others, but I can't imagine that would be true.

I see: you have no sympathy for one who acts in his own interest, but you might muster some sympathy for one who acts in the interest of others. You judge an action as noble if its motive is altruistic and self-sacrificial.

On the contrary, I strongly urge every one to act in his own interest. Produce goods and services which enhance human happiness, trade them freely, defend the property which you have thus earned, and defend the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Mind your own business, and mind it well. Never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser value. If you are forced to choose between defending your wife and defending a neighbor, defend your wife.

Be selfish: which means always work to attain your highest values and happiness. Never sacrifice these things to another simply because they are an other. The individual who should benefit from the fruits of your work is you, and not an other unless you choose it freely.

[Jennifer]

If what you just said is true, Jennifer ("all I've seen"), then you're simply not paying attention because it does not represent the facts.

So throw a bone to someone who does not yet have the benefits of over half a century of existence: what were these arguments, again?

[Billy Beck]

BTW, Jennifer:

"Yeah, the Hawaiian-shirt photo on your blog indicates as much."

Put your photograph up, Baby, and we'll have a go on your premise.

Don't fuck with me. I'll eat you alive and never think twice about it.

[Jennifer]

Don't fuck with me. I'll eat you alive and never think twice about it.

Sincere advice: if you want to cultivate an Internet-tough-guy persona, don't link to a blog photo showing that you're a skinny bald old guy in a Hawaiian shirt. Link to a photo of somebody with muscles instead.

[Billy Beck]

"So throw a bone to someone who does not yet have the benefits of over half a century of existence: what were these arguments, again?"

They're right in front of your face. "Some assembly required." I've said to people like you countless times: nobody can reach into your pretty little head and bolt concepts together for you. You're the only one who can do that.

If you really want to know, then pay attention.

[Billy Beck]

"Link to a photo of somebody with muscles instead."

Would you suck my dick if I did?

[Jennifer]

Would you suck my dick if I did?

So long as you promise not to whine too much after it gets caught between my teeth.

[Billy Beck]

Knocking a few of them out would solve that problem.

Are you really up for this fight?

[Jennifer]

Of course, Billy! On the Internet, I too can be as tough as a skinny old bald guy.

Actually, I can even do that in real life.

[Billy Beck]

Well, then, shoot me your address and I'll see if I can work you into my book.

Step right up.

[Jennifer]

So is "threatening to kick a woman's ass over the Internet" standard behavior for old anarchists with one foot in the grave, Billy, or are you giving it your own sui generis spin?

[Billy Beck]

Nice hair color, Jennifer. Earl Scheib, right?

Really well done.

[Billy Beck]

Oh, look: she moans. From "internet tough guy" to fetal-curl feminist in one easy post.

You can have things your way, Jennifer.

You call it.

[Jennifer]

Awesome! The last time anybody made fun of my hair color with the hopes of actually hurting my feelings was in elementary school. I feel so young again! So I repeat my comment from 1:13, Billy: what do you hope to accomplish by behaving the same way I did when I was nine?

[Jennifer]

Oh, look: she moans. From "internet tough guy" to fetal-curl feminist in one easy post.

Who is moaning, Billy? I sincerely want to know who you hope to impress by threatening to kick my ass over the Internet. Who do you think will be impressed by your intellectual prowess?

[Jake Boone]

"So throw a bone to someone who does not yet have the benefits of over half a century of existence: what were these arguments, again?"

They're right in front of your face. "Some assembly required." I've said to people like you countless times: nobody can reach into your pretty little head and bolt concepts together for you. You're the only one who can do that.

If you really want to know, then pay attention.

Yes, Jennifer, pay attention! Here's a list of all Billy's posts up to the point where he started saying that he'd already laid out his facts and arguments:

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

With friends like that, I might as well splash down a syphilis cocktail on the rocks.

Fucking disgusting.

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

Stop. Just stop it.

Bullshit.

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

Everything after that (aside from repeated insinuations that if everyone weren't so stupid and had just paid better attention, we'd all be market anarchists) is a hand-crafted phantasmagoria of insults, false claims, and (newly added!) rampant misogyny, so you don't need to read that. The facts are right there! There's no need for Billy to point them out!

[Jennifer]

Oh, Jake, admit it: when he threatened to knock my teeth out, you immediately realized that he's an intellectual paragon.

[Billy Beck]

"The last time anybody made fun of my hair color with the hopes of actually hurting my feelings was in elementary school."

Well, I don't know what kind of cheez-dick you're accustomed to dealing with in your life, but people who crack on my hair falling out -- or anything like the rest of your unilateral bullshit -- are just exactly as hopeless. But look: carry on if you want to, and we'll see who gets to whom, first.

[Billy Beck]

Jake: I see it now.

You edit the New York Times, don't you? Admit it.

[Jennifer]

Nothing wrong with your hair falling out, Billy, unless you're trying to pose as an Internet tough guy. Here's what you need to do: shave your head (completely bald looks far more menacing than merely "balding"), gain about 20 pounds, work out extensively, stop talking about how you're over 50, and lose the Hawaiian shirt.

The thing is, when you threaten to kick people's asses, they won't feel fightened unless they think you can actually DO it. I'm sorry, but you simply don't look like you can.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yeah, for those of you who were playing a sympathy card with this:

Billy Beck has already made more of a stand than any pusillanimous poster on this board, including me, and he's done it for decades, at considerable cost to himself.

I just wasn't going to let you have any sympathy from me. You paid that "considerable cost" for yourself.

So, Billy, I'll ask again: why are you continuing to sanction the State's victimization of you?

I've seen no satisfactory answer so far.

[Jake Boone]

Oh, Jake, admit it: when he threatened to knock my teeth out, you immediately realized that he's an intellectual paragon.

Yeah, I think that's what's really going to get the "thinkers" thinking, "you know, anarchism has a lot going for it. I didn't think so, until I saw an old methhead* threaten a woman online after asking her for a blowjob." Watch out, Leviathan!

* This is true. All of the facts proving it have been laid out earlier in the thread, idiots!

[Jennifer]

Don't overload him, Ayn Randian! I still want to know who he hoped to impress by threatening to knock out my teeth. Was it you, maybe? Did you read that and think "Whoa, there's a damned impressive wad of manhood and a paragon of intellectualism as well?"

[Jake Boone]

Jake: I see it now.

You edit the New York Times, don't you? Admit it.

Did I leave something out? Some sort of "fact" or "argument" you've presented? If so, I suggest you either quote it or STFU.

[Stevo Darkly]

As an anarcho-capitalist myself, I would love to take part in a reasoned discussion about the pros/cons of anarchism on H&R.

Let me know if one pops up some day and I'll join in.

Unfortunately, this thread went off the rails real early.

I'm afraid, Mr. Billy, that you make Richard Dawkins look like Dale Carnegie. Thanks a bunch.

[Ayn_Randian]

No Jennifer, the part that blew me away was when he swore out some lady collecting money for dead State Troopers...that was when I knew, that THIS GUY, he is an intellectual giant.

[Timothy]

In my mind this whole thread is on fire.

Jennifer: I think Billy's making a pass at you, he might just prefer that methed-out toothless look.

[Billy Beck]

"Nothing wrong with your hair falling out, Billy, unless you're trying to pose as an Internet tough guy."

Well, then, what does that have to do with it, except to a chick who gets swampy over internet tough guys?

"Here's what you need to do: shave your head (completely bald looks far more menacing than merely "balding"), gain about 20 pounds, work out extensively, stop talking about how you're over 50, and lose the Hawaiian shirt."

The last hair that falls out of my head will be as long as it can be, I like to control my weight with cigarettes, I routinely pull at least two hours a day of practice with a twelve-pound guitar slung on my shoulder (my favorite workout and you should try it before you remark on it), I'm proud of my experience and everything I've learned in all of it (you will be too, someday, if the paint-chips don't eat your brain), and no man should ever be without at least one crisply wrinkled Hawaiian shirt. Ever.

That's my story, I'm stickin' to it, and what you think is irrelevant.

Thanks anyway. "What you need to do" is piss off.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Linda Morgan wrote:

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

Those who exclaim that nature is red in tooth and claw are often the ones doing the biting and scratching. Those who exclaim that life is nasty, brutish, and short often support the very philosophy which makes it so.

For centuries the Almighty Church used the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin to justify rule by the lash, Then the Renaissance briefly flowered, followed by centuries of the Almighty State using a variant of Original Sin to justify rule by the lash. But as it turns out, the only man who is irredeemably brutal is the one holding the lash.

In the same way that we ceremonialized the Church, rendering its lash powerless, we must now ceremonialize the State before there can be any further Renaissance.

** (Credit to Robert A. Hettinga for the concept "ceremonialize the State")

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

BILLY BECK TOOK HIS INTERNETS LESSONS FROM THE URKOBOLD CHARM SCHOOL AND KNITTING EMPORIUM.

HE IS ALSO A WACKY, WAVING, INFLATABLE, ARM-FLAILING TUBE MAN.

ON TOAST, OR SOMETHING.

THAT'S URKOBOLD'S CHARM SCHOOL, MORE INFORMATION, INCLUDING TIMES AND PRICES (WHERE URKOBOLD HOARDS THE ABNORMAL ECONOMIC PROFITS) FOR 2008 TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON!!

[dhex]

this thread is now art and should be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Those who exclaim that nature is red in tooth and claw are often the ones doing the biting and scratching. Those who exclaim that life is nasty, brutish, and short often support the very philosophy which makes it so.

alternately, the price of existence is a kind of eternal warfare and competition is part of humanity. it just doesn't have to be chattel slavery and kill 'em all style theatrics.

i mean, witness this thread! at the very suggestion of differing ideas - a resource that exists somewhere in the between space of the imagination and the physical - we have ourselves a (bloodless) clash that quickly gets down to insults, threats and intimidation. and this is over a non-resource.

[Ayn_Randian]

Serious question: Jennifer dislikes Hawaiian shirts. Billy likes them.

Can issues of taste ever be objectively decided? That is, is one taste morally correct and the other wrong?

[Bill Lumbergh]

um. yeaaah.

Okay, Billy, it's time that you and I have, um, errrrr, a little talk.

You see, only last Friday was, um, yeah, Hawaiian Shirt day. You were free to go ahead and, umm yeah, wear a Hawaiian shirt. And jeans.

So I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to remember the dress code hier at Innitech. That'd be grreeeaaaaaat.

Thanks a bunch.

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy,

The only way this thing will ever be brought under rational control is by starving it into submission. ... I wouldn't characterize our money as "the least of it". It's actually a very, very big deal, Kyle.

(and earlier) I don't think these people are all that's left of America.

This thing absolutely needs to be starved into submission. But this thing doesn't feed on money. It doesn't even need money to buy what it wants. Our money is its hostage. Our need for money - the fact that money is the way rational men go about acquiring values from each other - is its leverage. It doesn't want to take those values for itself (aside from the small stipend needed to ply its wares), it wants to get in between rational men trading values, for no other reason than to be in between.

(Do you wonder why the penalty for not paying income taxes is less than the penalty for not submitting a signed form, even one that accurately documents that you don't owe any payment?)

It's more than happy to flush any values it thus acquires, (almost by accident or afterthought) right down the toilet, because those values aren't values to it, and because flushing them adds credibility to its pleas for more. The only value it seeks is to be esteemed by reasoning men; but it confuses notice with esteem and spraking with reason.

Why have they made the focus of the entire thread about you, directed all their attacks at you? Why is everybody here going on and on about how you are failing to convince anyone, how this should be made more persuasive to many Californians? Why do they keep trying to pull you down into the muck of debating random, detached concretes while desperately shielding their eyes from anything resembling an abstraction? Why do you think they're attracted to a site named "Reason"?

Why do you think that is so important to them, to get you to do all that, that they utterly refuse to see any other issue in these hundreds of comments? Why do they think it'll work? How is it that for all of history, rational men have lost out to blind instinct?

Can you try to starve it and try to save it at the same time? It's getting time to where the few that matter, the few that are left of America, have to let it go.

[Kyle Bennett]

In the same way that we ceremonialized the Church, rendering its lash powerless, we must now ceremonialize the State before there can be any further Renaissance.

And the essential characteristic of the ceremonialized church is that pretty much nobody gives a shit either way anymore. Nobody debates church doctrine as if their life (or even their afterlife) depended on it. Don't assume that the cause and effect of that goes only one way.

The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them. --me, elsewhere

[dhex]

what is it like being a one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind?

[Jake Boone]

It's getting time to where the few that matter, the few that are left of America, have to let it go.

Oh, so that's the "people who matter." People who share your philosophy. And you came here to talk to them, just like if I wanted to talk to my brother-in-law, I'd go to Oklahoma, where he doesn't live and has never been. Now it all makes sense!

[Ayn_Randian]

the few that are left of America

Don't talk about "America"; America is a nation-state, like I said before, with laws and rules and government. America was formed with the Constitution, a document that instituted a government.

[Jennifer]

The last hair that falls out of my head will be as long as it can be, I like to control my weight with cigarettes

So even if you were capable of knocking my teeth out, you'd be too wheezy and brinchial to catch me. Why, exactly, am I supposed to feel threatened by you? Is it the fact that your fingers are strong enough to type out the words "I will knock your teeth out?"

Jennifer dislikes Hawaiian shirts.

No, I just don't thik they're the right shirt to wear if you want people to think you're tough. Have you noticed how Hell's Angels never wear Hawaiian shirts? That's why.

[Cesar]

Wow, I can't say I'm sorry I didn't pay attention to this thread before.

[Billy Beck]

"Did I leave something out?"

As if a question like...

[Billy Beck]

...that/a> could make it all...

[Billy Beck]

...just disappear.

Look: this is simply voodoo epistemology.

[Dangerman]

Hi Guys! Great Thread! Look, I was wondering, Billy, would you say that you yourself are a left- or right- anarchist? That is, in an anarchic state, would you tend to cooperate or compete with your fellow anarchians? Secondly, do you have an opinion on how your fellow anarchians would act, in a cooperative or competitive way? I know that AR touched on this with the whole "tabula rasa" thing, but that was so two days ago, and kinda stale. I myself think that the left/right anarchy idea is not precise enough to really describe any kind of real situation, but it never hurts to ask, right?

[Billy Beck]

"No Jennifer, the part that blew me away was when he swore out some lady collecting money for dead State Troopers."

It wasn't a lady. It wasn't a woman at all. You just made that up, and you're not paying attention.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yah, Cesar, you missed out.

[Kyle Bennett]

Oh, so that's the "people who matter." People who share your philosophy

People who don't share the philosophy of this site, and of most of the people on this thread, and yours. People who can say "I" and mean it, and know what it means. The rest is of little importance.

And you came here to talk to them, just like if I wanted to talk to my brother-in-law, I'd go to Oklahoma, where he doesn't live and has never been.

I came to where honest miscalculation could lead them to believe they belonged. And to where I used to think I belonged.

[Jennifer]

Why have they made the focus of the entire thread about you, directed all their attacks at you?

One night in college I was in a bar--one of those cozy little bars where pretty much every customer was a "regular"-- and then some guy nobody ever saw before came in. Crazy man, poor guy, and probably homeless. He started yelling a bunch of stuff about the Illuminati or something, and then pulled his pants down and took a dump on the floor. Seriously. And then he tried picking a fight with one of the men, and then the cops came in, and--yeah, good times.

I can't recall what my friends and I were talking about before he came in, but afterwards he was about all we talked about for the rest of the night. "Holy shit! Whoa, bad choice of words, but--holy shit! Did you see that? Jesus!"

That's pretty much the same reason why we've made Billy the focus of this thread.

[Cesar]

The minarchy vs. anarchy argument is the most stupid one ever. You know why?

Because both minarchists and anarchists agree that currently, the state is too large and needs to be dramatically reduced. We disagree over how far the reduction should
go, but until the government is reduced down to a level where this makes a difference, who the fuck cares?

We should, in the meantime, work towards reducing the size and scope of the state.

[Ayn_Randian]

It wasn't a lady. It wasn't a woman at all. You just made that up, and you're not paying attention.

How does the gender of the caller make you any less of a prick for swearing out someone collecting money for dead State Troopers?

I mean, Galt, I know Rand wasn't big on charity, but that's no excuse to be an ass to someone who's just asking!

[Kyle Bennett]

We should, in the meantime, work towards reducing the size and scope of the state.

Yes, and we should completely ignore pesky questions like "how?", or even "why?"

----

That's a great story, Jen. Did you offer to blow him, too?

[Dangerman]

Actually, I would want to know if those troopers were killed in no-knock midnight raids before I gave any money. And I would still be polite about it.

[Billy Beck]

"...the Constitution, a document that instituted a government."

...and black slavery and dictatorial control over interstate commerce, for instance.

You really are a remarkably ignorant person. You think "America" is a line on a map and whatever a bunch of political presumptives manage to scratch out on a piece of paper for your herd's approval.

Nothing more hidebound, flyblown and threadbare has been posted in this mess, so far.

America is a concept and -- so far -- it's well out of your reach.

[Cesar]

Yes, and we should completely ignore pesky questions like "how?", or even "why?"

Yes, because as we get bogged down in those questions government will continue to expand rapidly. I don't care that your reason for reducing the size of leviathan is different from mine. All I care about is that you're interested in reducing it, and so am I. Great!

When the state is reduced down to such a size where our factional differences will become important in reality, then we can debate these issues.

Meanwhile, lets leave the petty factionalism to the Marxists.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yes, and we should completely ignore pesky questions like "how?", or even "why?"

Oh, I see you're not a David Kelley fan.

That sucks.

[Kyle Bennett]

When the state is reduced down to such a size where our factional differences will become important in reality,

And when, exactly will that be?

[Cesar]

And when, exactly will that be?

When the state does nothing more than provide courts, police, and an army. In the end, whether or not the state should poses those functions is really my only difference with you.

[Kyle Bennett]

When the state does nothing more than provide courts, police, and an army. In the end, whether or not the state should poses those functions is really my only difference with you.

Yeah, but when. Gimme a timeframe. Oh, and let me know when you figure out how you'll get us there. We'll see if you come up with the same thing I did.

[Ayn_Randian]

dictatorial control over interstate commerce

You know what's a fun game? Finding who can push out the most overbearing and reaching arguments ever.

YOU WIN, for equating "regulating" with "dictatorial control".

Any other dishonesties you wish to engage in today?

America is a concept

A concept that entails what exactly?

[Billy Beck]

Dangerman: "I was wondering, Billy, would you say that you yourself are a left- or right- anarchist?"

Very good question. I do not stipulate to the dichotomy, which is a big part of why I find all left "anarchism" to be completely senseless. The whole tradition that comes down from people like Proudhon, Bakunin, or Goldman can only, if taken to its conclusion with logical integrity, demand a state for the purpose (for single instance) of destroying the institution of private property. These people and all their adherents are myopic at best and thoroughly evil at worst.

"That is, in an anarchic state, would you tend to cooperate or compete with your fellow anarchians?"

Both. For instance; in my work, I am competing and cooperating with the same people all at once, but it happens in different contexts and scales so that the thing cannot ever be put that simply.

"...it never hurts to ask, right?"

No sir, it does not, so long as the questions are as honestly rendered as yours.

[Cesar]

Yeah, but when. Gimme a timeframe.

How the fuck should I know? It could be ten years, it could be 100. What matters is that we continue to move in the right direction.

Oh, and let me know when you figure out how you'll get us there.

By supporting organizations dedicated to promoting that goal. Convincing others that it is a worthwhile goal. Starting small.

I know lobbying to abolish the Department of Education or eliminating trade barriers doesn't sound as sexy as having some bloody revolution in the streets, but its a lot more likely to happen.

[Billy Beck]

"Because both minarchists and anarchists agree that currently, the state is too large and needs to be dramatically reduced. We disagree over how far the reduction should
go, but until the government is reduced down to a level where this makes a difference, who the fuck cares?"

Whether you know it or not, you just told everyone here that principles don't matter.

Nothing could be more dangerous to all this.

"We should, in the meantime, work towards reducing the size and scope of the state."

For what reasons should we do that?

The answer to that question begins to inform the "how" of it.

[Jake Boone]

YOU WIN, for equating "regulating" with "dictatorial control".

That's not at all fair, AR, and you know it. What about equating a) support for the Constitutional version of government; with b) cheering while it "tear[s] the meat off my bones"? That's a clear winner.

[Kyle Bennett]

Any other dishonesties you wish to engage in today?

*snicker*

[Billy Beck]

"How does the gender of the caller make you any less of a prick for swearing out someone collecting money for dead State Troopers?"

When you admit why you fabricated the facts about that "gender" way you did, I'll answer that.

[Cesar]

One libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because government rests on a foundation of coercive violence, that is immoral at its core.

Another libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because everything it does could be accomplished more efficently by private means.

[Billy Beck]

"YOU WIN, for equating 'regulating' with 'dictatorial control'."

Splendid! I love it when the point is grasped.

[Cesar]

Crap, didn't finish my post. Again:

One libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because government rests on a foundation of coercive violence, that is immoral at its core.

Another libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because everything it does could be accomplished more efficently by private means.

Are you saying that libertarian A should tell libertarian B to fuck off because of this difference?

[Kyle Bennett]

I know lobbying to abolish the Department of Education or eliminating trade barriers doesn't sound as sexy as having some bloody revolution in the streets,

You seem like a decent guy, so I hope you learn to see other alternatives before it's too late.

but its a lot more likely to happen.

Sadly, I doubt you're right on that.

[Ayn_Randian]

When you admit why you fabricated the facts about that "gender" way you did, I'll answer that.

Huh? Uhh, OK, I admit it...I thought it was a female because that's the gender that solicits me about charities 9/10ths of the time.

[GinSlinger]

America

What's all this then? What the hell is "America"?

Do you mean The Americas?

You realize that the name of this country is The United States of America, right? And that we are "Americans" in the same way that Mexicans and Brazilians and Canooks are, right?

Perhaps, you mean the concept of "Columbia," (look it up) but regardless, you are wrong to refer to The United States of America as "America."

If you can't get that right, why should anyone believe that anything else you spew is right?

If human nature is not to dominate and control, then why does government do so? Are the people who compose government not human? Are they lizardmen from some other galaxy with a different "nature"?

[Kyle Bennett]

One libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because government rests on a foundation of coercive violence, that is immoral at its core.

Another libertarian believes that the state should be dramatically reduced because everything it does could be accomplished more efficently by private means.

Are you saying that libertarian A should tell libertarian B to fuck off because of this difference?

No, the "fuck off" comes from another class of "difference" entirely. You get this instead: I suggest you check your premises. Some libertarians believe that advocating a mere "reduction" of the state is a moral error and will lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the route to ultimate failure.

And some libertarians oppose the state on grounds of - and ascribe it's means and support to - things not included in your dichotomy.

[Billy Beck]

Cesar: yes.

It's the same as the difference between arguing against the Holocaust as it happened because murder is immoral, and arguing against it because H-bombs would be better than Zyklon-B at wiping out the Jews.

There is no serious room in any of this for utilitarianism. That's a big part of how we got to these straits to begin with.

[Ayn_Randian]

Splendid! I love it when the point is grasped.

Are you claiming that the term "regulation" really means "dictatorial control"?

Wait, you do know what "regulating interstate commerce" (STOP SNICKERING H&RUNNERS!) means in the context of the Constitution, right?

[Eric the .5b]

You realize that the name of this country is The United States of America, right? And that we are "Americans" in the same way that Mexicans and Brazilians and Canooks are, right?

Ohhhhhh, no. Don't go there, man.

I ain't a unitedstatian. You can be - I'm not.

[GinSlinger]

Half-a B, you can be a USAmerican (pronounced osamerican), if you like.

[Eric the .5b]

It's the same as the difference between arguing against the Holocaust as it happened because murder is immoral, and arguing against it because H-bombs would be better than Zyklon-B at wiping out the Jews.

Wow, that's not merely godwinning, that's like godwin squaring.

Excellent work! Nobody will mistakenly think you are trying to engage in rational conversation.

[Jennifer]

Ayn Randian: "How does the gender of the caller make you any less of a prick for swearing out someone collecting money for dead State Troopers?"

Billy Beck: When you admit why you fabricated the facts about that "gender" way you did, I'll answer that.

Gender is very, very important to Internet Tough Guys who are more than half past middle age. These-here teeth of mine won't knock themselves out, you know! They need Billy's gnarled nicotine-stained old-man fingers to do it for them.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'm actually still waiting for the "concept of America" to be unpacked and explained.

If America's not a nation-state, what is it?

[Jennifer]

If America's not a nation-state, what is it?

One of the more execrable 1970s bands.

[Billy Beck]

"OK, I admit it..."

Thank you. Here's something else I know from experience with you over the past couple of days: that episode right there is quite emblematic, so far, of your intellectual ability.

The answer to your question: "the gender of the caller" has nothing to do with it. Now, since we now know that you read with comprehension on the order of a broken corn-harvester, you can go back and read it again.

"...about the fourth one this year."

Let me know if you can't figure the implications, and I'll help.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'd like a serious answer to this as well:

Can issues of taste ever be objectively decided? That is, is one taste morally correct and the other wrong?

[Jake Boone]

If America's not a nation-state, what is it?

It's a concept! A concept of a magical land, where everyone is free to hold exactly the same principles that Billy does, and everyone is free to believe whatever Billy believes, and everyone is free to discuss whatever they want, so long as they don't ask questions Billy thinks are stupid, in which case they have no business in the forum!

[Jennifer]

The answer to your question: "the gender of the caller" has nothing to do with it.

And yet you made a huge big deal over it anyway. Another one of those mystery points you think you're scoring over here.

[Ayn_Randian]

Thank you. Here's something else I know from experience with you over the past couple of days: that episode right there is quite emblematic, so far, of your intellectual ability.

The fact that I said the caller was a woman is emblematic of my intellectual ability...that's seriously what you're saying.

I don't get it.

[Billy Beck]

"If human nature is not to dominate and control, then why does government do so?"

Take a good look at it. The people in government -- for all the harm they do -- are actually a very small percentage of the population. The fact is that most people really aren't interested in running around ruling over their fellows' lives. (At least: that's been the run of things over most of our history. This is now changing rapidly.) The most extravagant estimates of popular interest in the Constitution at ratification run to no more than about one-third.

It is a crucial error to equate the urge to rule with "human nature".

[Eric the .5b]

Half-a B, you can be a USAmerican (pronounced osamerican), if you like.

I don't like.

One pretty much has to resort to redefinition to use "America" and "Americans" to mean anything but the common English usages you're denying. "America" is not a collective term for two continents, nor is the term "Americans" ever invoked to refer collectively to the inhabitants of two continents except in forlorn attempts to deny the common usage.

Those redefinitions will gain acceptance roughly a week before the Randian definitions of "selfishness" and "altruism" do. 😉

[Billy Beck]

"Are you claiming that the term 'regulation' really means 'dictatorial control'?"

In the context that we're talking about?

Absolutely.

[Jennifer]

The fact that I said the caller was a woman is emblematic of my intellectual ability...that's seriously what you're saying. I don't get it.

It's because, quote, "the gender of the caller has nothing to do with it."

[Billy Beck]

.5: Godwin was about half an idiot when he formulated his famous "Law", and everyone after him has worked diligently to complete the form.

Stop acting like an idiot.

[Jake Boone]

The fact is that most people really aren't interested in running around ruling over their fellows' lives.

You've never been to a city council meeting, have you?

[Ayn_Randian]

In the context that we're talking about?

Absolutely.

What dictator is it that was tasked with controlling interstate commerce again? (STOP LAUGHING YOU GUYS I SWEAR...)

[Kyle Bennett]

and everyone is free to believe whatever Billy believes,

You seem to be implying that everyone should be free to believe whatever whim they want to believe.

Which of course they are, but they're not free to do so indefinitely. Reality will catch up with them, eventually.

[Jennifer]

Stop acting like an idiot.

. . .quoth the "man" who seriously compares the regulation of interstate commerce to the Holocaust.

By the way, Billy, when's your manly old Viagra'd self gonna come over here and teach me a much-needed lesson? My teeth aren't even loose, you bald wheezing pussy.

[Billy Beck]

"Can issues of taste ever be objectively decided? That is, is one taste morally correct and the other wrong?"

Define your terms.

It could be said that Charles Manson had a "taste" for murder, in which case the answer to your question starts coming into view.

[Eric the .5b]

.5: Godwin was about half an idiot when he formulated his famous "Law", and everyone after him has worked diligently to complete the form.

That's the most painfully vacuous thing I've read in the last seven calendar days.

Damn.

[GinSlinger]

Actually Eric, what you are referring to is actually already the redefinition as seen here and elsewhere.

[Billy Beck]

"And yet you made a huge big deal over it anyway."

"Big deal"? {shrug} Call it what you want, but I never mentioned it until someone else here did, and for reasons that have slipped your Candy Apple helmet.

[Eric the .5b]

You seem to be implying that everyone should be free to believe whatever whim they want to believe.

Which of course they are, but they're not free to do so indefinitely. Reality will catch up with them, eventually.

...But this tops it!

I have to admit, even the wonder of competition has a dark side.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'm not sure what it's going to take to get this answered, but:

Can issues of taste ever be objectively decided? That is, is one taste morally correct and the other wrong?

That is, is my preference for lemon ice cream better or worse than yours for chocolate? Or is it *GULP* subjective?

[Billy Beck]

"The fact that I said the caller was a woman is emblematic of my intellectual ability...that's seriously what you're saying."

That's right.

"Reading is fundamental."

"I don't get it."

I know.

[Jennifer]

I never mentioned it until someone else here did, and for reasons that have slipped your Candy Apple helmet.

Is that the pet name you've adopted for your Big Head, or your Floppy Little One?

[Billy Beck]

"You've never been to a city council meeting, have you?"

Of course I have, and the point holds under direct observation. Right in my little village, the Board comprises an infinitesimal part of the population, and they're nearly universally despised. Everybody else does their best to mind their own goddamned business.

[Ayn_Randian]

I know.

Smugness is a warm coat, isn't it, Billy? You claimed that the gender didn't matter and then it became a big deal when I said the caller was one of the two choices I had.

Are you coming to a point here, or what?

[GinSlinger]

Billy,
It is a crucial error to equate the urge to rule with "human nature".

How so? Are those with the "urge to rule" not human?

Or, are you suggestting that the urge is not natural? If not natural, where does it come from? Why did it arise? Is it possible that there is more that one human nature? And if so, how many? Before government we were all hunky dory eating out acrons from the ground of the oak tree that is our shelter?

[dhex]

There is no serious room in any of this for utilitarianism.

which may be why you stay in the realm of the imaginary.

[Billy Beck]

"...the 'man' who seriously compares the regulation of interstate commerce to the Holocaust."

In fact, that was a contrast of political methods, honey. The matter of interstate commerce was a completely different remark and context.

Time to have your helmet buffed out.

[Ayn_Randian]

Everybody else does their best to mind their own goddamned business.

Strange then that they vote, huh?

[Jennifer]

Are you coming to a point here?

You need to address that question not to Billy, but to his Candy Apple Helmet.

[Jennifer]

The one he grips tightly while typing tough-guy threats online, I mean.

[Billy Beck]

"You claimed that the gender didn't matter and then it became a big deal when I said the caller was one of the two choices I had."

The "big deal", if you insist, is in what you were unable to understand from plain English right in front of your eyes. That post says, "the guy on the phone," and it went right past you while you were fantasizing.

I saw this in all your method here quite before you did that.

[Ayn_Randian]

There's a question pending about ice cream here, people...ice cream!

OK, Billy, I'll get straight to my point, and you touched on it a little bit with the "murder" thing (although you shouldn't use the term "murder", Billy, that's a legal term and we know you don't like laws), but as it concerns taste...is my taste for classic rock worse than yours for classical? Is my taste for kinky sex worse than yours for vanilla? And what point do you draw the line between kosher personal preferences and ones that are not OK?

And I dare you to say that whatever people choose to do so long as it doesn't harm you is OK...I dare you.

[Eric the .5b]

Actually Eric, what you are referring to is actually already the redefinition as seen here and elsewhere.

To which part of that article are you referring? The relevant bit seems to me to be:

America or the Americas is preferred, American is a self-referential term for many people living in the Americas. However, much of the English-speaking world uses the word to refer solely to a citizen, resident, or national of the United States of America. Instead, the word pan-American is used as an unambiguous adjective to refer to the Americas.

In addition, some Canadians resent being referred to as Americans because of mistaken assumptions that they are U.S. citizens or an inability-particularly of people overseas-to distinguish Canadian English and American English accents.

Emphasis added. If you'd rather people not call themselves Americans with that definition, come up with a better name that people will. Trying to claim an old, common usage is wrong and should be re-applied to meanings that have a number of commonly-accepted terms already just won't fly.

[Eric the .5b]

That should be "come up with a better name that people will prefer".

[Billy Beck]

"Are those with the 'urge to rule' not human?"

Yes. In the most fundamental terms, that's exactly right. The person whose name is currently being trampled around here by someone without the sheer spine to use her or her own once pointed out that "Man is the only entity that can sink below his own nature," and what we're discussing is the premier example of that in a political context.

[Ayn_Randian]

The "big deal", if you insist, is in what you were unable to understand from plain English right in front of your eyes. That post says, "the guy on the phone," and it went right past you while you were fantasizing.

Look, Wild Bill, I don't know how megalomaniacal you are, but I was recalling that post from memory, not from reading off of your blog, which I did two days ago. I'm sorry, I didn't know that being a rational being required total recall. Make hay out of the fact I misremembered your precious little post. The point is that you swore up somebody on the phone calling you for charity. Actually, charity has nothing to do with it...you were a right asshole because you felt like it. And you also somehow claim that was alright because it was the fourth time this year...jesus, you are a piece of work.

[Billy Beck]

"...which may be why you stay in the realm of the imaginary."

There is no "imagin[ing]" left to be done when it comes to what government is doing to my homeland, sir, and I never "imagin[e]" that, say, voting is going to come to terms with it, like whole generations of outright delusionals have.

I'm the one addressing reality.

[Kyle Bennett]

GinSlinger,

are you suggestting that the urge [to rule] is not natural?

Good question. No, it isn't.

If not natural, where does it come from? Why did it arise?

Another good question. One I don't have a clear answer to, but this thread provides quite a few clues.

Is it possible that there is more that one human nature? ...

See, now your right back to the asinine and cynical nonsense.

AR:

Strange then that they vote, huh?

You'll never understand how close you just came to getting it.

[Billy Beck]

"Strange then that they vote, huh?"

Actually, most of them don't. The rulers just carry on as if they had.

[Ayn_Randian]

The person whose name is currently being trampled around here by someone without the sheer spine to use her or her own

Erm, what's that? Me ears are burning.

Of course, because I don't agree with you about everything, I must be spineless.

[Jennifer]

I never "imagin[e]" that, say, voting is going to come to terms with it, like whole generations of outright delusionals have.

But going to an Internet forum and annoying the regulars, now--that's where you start to see real progress being made.

Freedom shall never die so long as the Fighting Keyboardists are ready to risk Carpal Tunnel to defend it.

[Ayn_Randian]

Is it possible that there is more that one human nature?

So, you're just going to dismiss that question with canards about it being cynical and asinine? Why is that an impossibility, Kyle?

You'll never understand how close you just came to getting it.

What the fuck is this, The Price is Right?

[Jake Boone]

Some people don't get that most folks use nicknames on the internet, and it's not a big deal. I suspect it's a holdover from CB radio, combined with the fact that if your real name is John Smith and you're on the internet, you're kind of screwed if you don't have a more personalized handle.

Billy has apparently decided that using a handle is an admission of weakness. Billy is apparently a fool.

[Ayn_Randian]

Freedom shall never die so long as the Fighting Keyboardists are ready to risk Carpal Tunnel to defend it.

Yes, Jennifer, so true...but more strange than that is the time and energy spent on people (us) who don't matter.

[Kyle Bennett]

Freedom shall never die so long as the Fighting Keyboardists are ready to risk Carpal Tunnel to defend it.

Is that what you think you're doing here? I mean on this site in general, not specifically this thread. Defending freedom?

[Eric the .5b]

Yes, Jennifer, so true...but more strange than that is the time and energy spent on people (us) who don't matter.

But he's not spending it on you! Not when he responds to you, not when he asks you questions, and not even when he talks about you in the second person.

This is really all meant for the Incipient Anarchists out there. You're just uncouth enough to see through the FNORD that's supposed to keep you from seeing those comments.

[GinSlinger]

See, now your right back to the asinine and cynical nonsense.

No, I don't see, and you don't seem to be capable of illustrating, so I guess we're at an impass.

If "the urge to rule" is not natural, it was learned. If that was learned, other cultural phenomenon can be learned as well.

Yes. In the most fundamental terms, that's exactly right. The person whose name is currently being trampled around here by someone without the sheer spine to use her or her own once pointed out that "Man is the only entity that can sink below his own nature," and what we're discussing is the premier example of that in a political context.

I'm afraid, Billy boy, that it is you that seem to have the problem with reading comprehension. That quote does not suggest that they are not human, only that they are exisiting in an unnatural state. Better luck next time.

WHERE DOES THE "URGE TO RULE" COME FROM if it is not at least a part of human nature?

[Jennifer]

Is that what you think you're doing here? I mean on this site in general, not specifically this thread. Defending freedom?

I am truly at a loss to know how to answer that question. I just re-read my original comment, in case maybe I'd misremembered the context or something, and then I started to type a response but could only shake my head in slow, amazed wonder.

[Kyle Bennett]

What the fuck is this, The Price is Right?

Might as well be, for all the bouncing around and flashing lights and jumping up and down to accomplish nothing. I'm only hanging around to make sure Bob Barker gets home safe after the show. He's getting a little distracted, ya know, and doesn't realize he retired a few months ago.

[Eric the .5b]

Billy has apparently decided that using a handle is an admission of weakness.

Until he includes his middle name, city and state of residence, and SSN, "Billy Beck" is pretty darn ambiguous a handle. How many thousands of William Becks (first name and preferred-middle name) are there out there?

[Jake Boone]

I am truly at a loss to know how to answer that question.

Kyle's just doing his part to help "weed out the thinkers."

[Billy Beck]

"...(although you shouldn't use the term 'murder', Billy, that's a legal term and we know you don't like laws)..."

In fact, it morally precedes law.

".....is my taste for classic rock worse than yours for classical?"

(Well, I think you have that about half-backwards, but I'll stipulate.)

You know, "The Romantic Manifesto" made a good deal of hard-hitting sense to me, but what you're talking about is one aspect of Rand that I had no choice but to reject. It wasn''t hard.

"And I dare you to say that whatever people choose to do so long as it doesn't harm you is OK...I dare you."

I would never say that. For instance: if I did, then I would have to write-off sixty million dead under Lenin and Stalin. No way.

[Eric the .5b]

Might as well be, for all the bouncing around and flashing lights and jumping up and down to accomplish nothing.

So true. But we're not the ones bellowing "COME ON DOWN!"

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy has apparently decided that using a handle is an admission of weakness.

Is that what that was? Do you seriously think that, Billy? Because, I mean, my real e-mail address is in there and everything, and I don't exactly have the commonest name in the world.

Steven Druckenmiller

I'm afraid, Billy boy, that it is you that seem to have the problem with reading comprehension. That quote does not suggest that they are not human, only that they are existing in an unnatural state. Better luck next time.

GinSlinger for the win.

[Eric the .5b]

In fact, it morally precedes law.

There's an amusingly impossible point to prove.

[Billy Beck]

"I didn't know that being a rational being required total recall."

It dosesn't. Nobody can do that.

"Make hay out of the fact..."

I'm not interested, and I'll shut up about it when you do. In fact, I was shut-up about it before you.

"The point is that you swore up..."

Why don't you get your facts in order? The fact is that I did no such thing. The fact is that I quoted every single word that I said on the phone in that post.

Look: try to imagine how impossible it is to reason with someone who's not interested in facts.

There is a lot more to the issue that you're writing about here, but there is no way that I'm going through it seriously with you, on what I've seen so far.

[Jennifer]

There's an amusingly impossible point to prove.

No, actually it's quite easy, provided you're willing to buckle down and really sink your teeth into it. I'd do it for you, only I'm worried that Billy will come along and knock said teeth out, per his earlier tough-geezer threat.

[AC]

One of the more execrable 1970s bands.

Okay, now that's just over the line.

[Ayn_Randian]

There is a lot more to the issue that you're writing about here, but there is no way that I'm going through it seriously with you, on what I've seen so far.

I see, so I'm not worthy. Damn!

You know, "The Romantic Manifesto" made a good deal of hard-hitting sense to me, but what you're talking about is one aspect of Rand that I had no choice but to reject. It wasn''t hard.

Now, wait a sec, does that mean you're claiming there is no better or worse music? Art? Television? Food? Drink? Because all of these things are issue of taste. No better or worse type of sexual preference?

[Jennifer]

AC, there is no reason for me to show respect to anyone too lazy to name his goddamned horse.

[Billy Beck]

"Some people don't get that most folks use nicknames on the internet, and it's not a big deal."

It is to me.

I have friends who do it, too, but I always count character points off.

[Eric the .5b]

There is a lot more to the issue that you're writing about here, but there is no way that I'm going through it seriously with you, on what I've seen so far.

Oh, no. Flashback to pointless college debates with smug, asshole socialists!

If you were going to bring back my university days, why couldn't you be a cute girl of Italian descent who wants me to read your poetry?

[Billy Beck]

"If 'the urge to rule' is not natural, it was learned.

So is burglary.

What's natural is the ability to learn. That, however, say nothing about the values necessary to live like a human being instead of a predator.

[Ayn_Randian]

It dosesn't. Nobody can do that.

Well, since you concede the point, why do you think my admitted misremembering is somehow indicative of my intelligence level?

[Eric the .5b]

It is to me.

Full legal name, municipality of residence, and/or SSN, or else you're using a nickname.

Well, we can pretty much assume you're using a nickname, unless you're going to claim "Billy" is your legal first name.

[Jake Boone]

ATTENTION INTERNET: Please stop using screen names at once. Billy Beck needs to be able to find you in order to threaten you with the knocking out of your teeth and, possibly, forcible oral sex. Failure to do so will result in a loss of character points, which will particularly impact GURPS players. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Jennifer]

Billy Beck needs to be able to find you in order to threaten you with the knocking out of your teeth and, possibly, forcible oral sex.

I hope he at least uses Viagra first. I'm good, very damned good, but you can't reasonably expect me to be all Jesus regarding his Little Lazarus down there.

[Ayn_Randian]

but I always count character points off.

Why? In what form or fashion is using a handle indicative of one's character? Isn't this just another personal preference issue (or matter of taste, if you will), given that my name is in the e-mail address you're more than free to view?

For that matter, I don't see where you have any MORE character for using your "real" name.

That leads to another interesting point: did you choose that name, in much the way Rand chose hers? Do you even like your name? If so, why?

[AC]

But it felt good to be out of the rain!

[Jake Boone]

In the desert, your handle isn't your name, so there ain't no one for to...

No, I can't go on.

[Ayn_Randian]

What's natural is the ability to learn.

Natural to whom? The severely mentally handicapped are generally unable to learn. Unless of course you're calling that "unnatural".

[Billy Beck]

Eric The Half-Ass:

William Joseph Beck III

1185 Daisy Hollow Road
Dryden, NY. 13053

DOB: 11/27/56
SSN: 430-21-4093, issued in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Anyone can use that number if they want to. I don't use it. The government does.

Any more questions?

Don't fuck me, punk. I've seen a million of 'em like you.

[Jennifer]

Don't fuck me, punk.

Why would he want to? I've seen your photo, and you can't even claim to have a Good Personality.

[Ayn_Randian]

Holy shit.

[Billy Beck]

"Now, wait a sec, does that mean you're claiming there is no better or worse music?"

To whom?

You didn't get Objectivist ethics at all, did you? If you did, then you would understand Rand's premise that evaluations are worthless without accounting for the valuer.

Look: Frank Zappa is a hero of mine, but I have never ever understood his attachment to Edgar Varese. So? {shrug} That's Frank's lookout, and not mine.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Jennifer wrote:

Freedom shall never die so long as the Fighting Keyboardists are ready to risk Carpal Tunnel to defend it.

I just searched back through every one of your posts and discovered to my amazement that you have not uttered a single statement of philosophical or political substance. (Snarkiness about blow jobs and hawaiian shirts doesn't count)

I encourage you to take the floor now and contribute to the quality of this discussion. In particular, I welcome your views on effective ways to promote individual freedom.

I agree that mere keyboarding is not an answer in itself. It is only a way to discuss answers. With that in mind, you now have the floor.

[Billy Beck]

(on "character points off")

"Why?"

It's because I reserve a special respect for people who stand up for what they say on their own full authority and responsibility.

That's why.

[Kyle Bennett]

The severely mentally handicapped are generally unable to learn

There's that cynicism again, JT. Any question of human nature, and you immediately cling to the exceptions, the damaged and dysfunctional, in your desperate race to deny that you have a nature, that you are something, that you are.

Why is that your first gut reaction? Remember how it ended for you in the book, JT?

[Jake Boone]

Don't fuck me [...]

You are a veritable font of unintentional wisdom.

[Ron Good]

Great.

We've got so-called libertarians arguing in favour of NORML's "buy 'en off" sop to the politicos; Ayn Randian arguing in favour of state compulsion because he's more afraid of his neighbours than he is of government power, and folks here are ganging up on Billy, who is one of only maybe two or three folks here who is plainly stating that emperor has no clothes.

Just freakin' wonderful.

And Jennifer: you came in late in the game, but you are misapprehending Billy as badly as someone might misapprehend Audie Murphy if they only saw his cowboy movies--and for some of the sdame reasons.

[Billy Beck]

"Holy shit."

You want my phone number?

Shoot me an e-mail. I tend to handle that a hair more discreetly. But I always subscribe a precept laid down in Usenet many years ago by someone who said, "Phonies don't phone."

I am as real as anything you've ever seen online, kids.

Try me.

[Eric the .5b]

William Joseph Beck III

...if that's your real name...

Why not actually use that instead of a character-point-deducting handle?

Don't fuck me, punk.

1) I'm not remotely cool enough to be punk.
2) I'm not into the non-con thing, and I won't make the wearing-a-bodice-and-calling-me-a-wicked-pirate exception for you.
3) You're really creepily obsessed with violent, forced sex, threatening to inflict it on others and considering any challenge to your bloviations to be an implicit threat of it against you. You might talk to someone about that.

[Jennifer]

I just searched back through every one of your posts and discovered to my amazement that you have not uttered a single statement of philosophical or political substance. (Snarkiness about blow jobs and hawaiian shirts doesn't count). I encourage you to take the floor now and contribute to the quality of this discussion. In particular, I welcome your views on effective ways to promote individual freedom.

Snarkiness about blowjobs is an extremely effective way to promote an individual's freedom to keep all of her teeth, sans fear of Billy's mighty Fists of Anarchistic Justice.

[VM]

Mr. W Beck:

Dryden, NY. 13053

cool - finger lakes region. beautiful countryside!

aren't there a coupla good vineyards nearby?

(BTW,Courtland College, near you, was a rival of ours in hockey)

[Eric the .5b]

You want my phone number?

We know who must call him, so as to make sure he's not actually Eric Dondero. 😉

[Eric the .5b]

And Jennifer: you came in late in the game, but you are misapprehending Billy as badly as someone might misapprehend Audie Murphy if they only saw his cowboy movies--and for some of the sdame reasons.

I getcha. So, in some other unspecified venue, the alleged William Joseph Beck III is rational and argues in good faith.

Shame he only brought his cowboy catalog.

[AC]

In the desert, your handle isn't your name, so there ain't no one for to...

No, I can't go on.

That's too bad. Just a little farther and you would have made it to Ventura Highway.

[Ayn_Randian]

You didn't get Objectivist ethics at all, did you? If you did, then you would understand Rand's premise that evaluations are worthless without accounting for the valuer.

Oh, I got it, but stating that the evaluations are worthless without the subject is subjectivism. That is, when evaluating art, music, books, wine, food you give primacy to the subject.

So? {shrug} That's Frank's lookout, and not mine.

And where do you draw the line between acceptable differences in taste and different ethical outlooks? Why is there only "one way" [ethical egoism] in ethics but multiple "ways" [Vivaldi or Van Halen]in art and food?

How come you can't just look at an altruist and go "hey, that's your lookout"?

There's that cynicism again, JT. Any question of human nature, and you immediately cling to the exceptions, the damaged and dysfunctional, in your desperate race to deny that you have a nature, that you are something, that you are.

You know, the exceptions do exist and calling names doesn't address that fact. I know, I know "lifeboat ethics", but did none of you ever seriously think that failing to address "lifeboat ethics" was, well, a failing of Rand's?

[Billy Beck]

"finger lakes region. beautiful countryside!"

It sure is, even when it's 22 degrees out with a twenty-knot wind blowing across two feet of fresh powder.

I've been privileged to see every nook and cranny of America in my life, and a lot of the rest of the world. This is the most beautiful place in the world, to me.

"aren't there a coupla good vineyards nearby?"

Well, that's what they say, but I'm not a real wine nut, so I don't really know.

[Billy Beck]

"...if that's your real name..."

A regular Pearls-Before-Swine moment, and I always go about 3-1 that that's how it's going to play: no fact or truth is ever transmittable over the 'net to a catatonic skeptic.

{shrug}

[VM]

You really are living in nice countryside! definitely!!

"Well, that's what they say, but I'm not a real wine nut, so I don't really know."

fair enough - actually, TWC is a regular poster who's big on wine, so we'll chat beautiful countryside, and he and i can chat wine.

[Eric the .5b]

A regular Pearls-Before-Swine moment, and I always go about 3-1 that that's how it's going to play: no fact or truth is ever transmittable over the 'net to a catatonic skeptic.

True, but it's at least 15-1 that anyone whining about skeptics has something worth saying...and they usually actually say something.

[VM]

Hay - wait a sec.

Mr. Beck - a quick search shows you've not been shy about your "socialist insecurity number" since at least 2003 on Radley's site.

okay - you are sticking it to the man who tries to stick it to us, I'll give you that!

[Ayn_Randian]

you immediately cling to the exceptions, the damaged and dysfunctional

Doesn't sound like to me you've figured out what to do with the exceptions, either.

[Kyle Bennett]

did none of you ever seriously think that failing to address "lifeboat ethics" was, well, a failing of Rand's?

Maybe, but not as an input to just plain old ethics. You prefer holding all ethics hostage to those to whom, by your definition of their capacity, ethics is irrelevant... just as you earlier held law hostage to those to whom law is - again, by your own description - irrelevant.

Do you see the pattern emerging?

[Timothy]

Might as well be, for all the bouncing around and flashing lights and jumping up and down to accomplish nothing.

So this thread is what happens when Billy takes Viagra?

[Billy Beck]

"Oh, I got it, but stating that the evaluations are worthless without the subject is subjectivism."

The Objectivist argument over values is not that individual preferences must be reduced to "objectivism" -- although That Woman very often got in her own way about this -- but that values are necessary to human life and that some values will further it and others won't.

At the root of the logic, there is nothing "subjectivist" about it.

"How come you can't just look at an altruist and go "hey, that's your lookout"?"

I can. There are people in my family with whom I do it all the time. For instance: a compulsion to go flying-off halfway around the world to minister to the needy on religious premises. "Everybody gets to go to hell in their own go-cart." I've said it countless times, and I mean it.

Where I won't tolerate it is in politics: forcing others to do likewise.

This is a crucial distinction.

[Billy Beck]

"Mr. Beck - a quick search shows you've not been shy about your "socialist insecurity number" since at least 2003 on Radley's site."

I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that I first published all that in Usenet at least ten years ago, when I was living in metro Atlanta.

[Timothy]

Somebody's getting a mountain of new credit card debt for Christmas!

NOTE TO THE FBI: I AM JOKING!

[VM]

As I said, Mr. Beck, gotta hand it to you for sticking it to the man who sticks it to all of us!

TIMOTHY NEEDS ANOTHER CUPCAKE.
CUPCAKES!!!!!!!!

[Ayn_Randian]

You prefer holding all ethics hostage to those to whom, by your definition of their capacity, ethics is irrelevant... just as you earlier held law hostage to those to whom law is - again, by your own description - irrelevant.

Well, first of all, I never said any of what you're attributing to me. You'll note that I was asking questions. Secondly, did it ever occur to you that part of what makes a good philosophy is probing its weaknesses? Maybe, just maybe you should have considered that was what I was doing, instead of attributing these terrible motives to me.

And there you go...you couldn't explain things in a reasonable tone to somebody who dared to question Objectivism's ethical and political branches. Makes me wonder how you plan on getting other people, people who don't already know the things that a lot of Objectivists know, to be as rational as students of Objectivism can be.

[Ayn_Randian]

The Objectivist argument over values is not that individual preferences must be reduced to "objectivism" -- although That Woman very often got in her own way about this -- but that values are necessary to human life and that some values will further it and others won't.

At the root of the logic, there is nothing "subjectivist" about it.

Very well put.

[Timothy]

Serious Question for Mr. Beck: If a person of low moral character were to use the information you've provided here to steal your identity and make a bunch of fraudulent purchases in your name: would you prosecute this person under the law? Would you encourage or discourage the card issuer to prosecute this person under the law? If so does that make you a flaccid hypocrit?

[Ron Good]

in some other venue, the alleged William Joseph Beck III is rational and argues in good faith.

Yes. Exactly--and not just in some other venue, and I've never seen an exception in over 10 years, including what you're seeing here today, but you might not recognize the truth of that (and that's not Billy's fault).

[Ayn_Randian]

See, the unfortunate part in all of this is that, no matter what, you get to keep your rights as long as you can defend them. You can be morally in the clear all day long, but it's not going to do you any good against anybody with serious firepower and more bodies than you have. That is the true tragedy.

[Timothy]

Ron has apparently also been huffing paint in Billy's mom's basement. You know Ron, Mother Beck is never going to fuck you no matter how many times you offer to mow the lawn in hotpants.

[Jennifer]

Serious Question for Mr. Beck: If a person of low moral character were to use the information you've provided here to steal your identity and make a bunch of fraudulent purchases in your name: would you prosecute this person under the law? Would you encourage or discourage the card issuer to prosecute this person under the law? If so does that make you a flaccid hypocrit?

Aso, if you make good on your manly threat to knock my teeth out, which response can I morally make: call the police and let them prosecute you, or get my friends to beat you up in kind?

[Jake Boone]

[...] but you might not recognize the truth of that (and that's not Billy's fault).

And you'd see that, too, Eric, if you'd just take the time to climb over the gigantic mountain of assholishness he's built around his words and ignore all the misogyny and give him ten years of attention despite the fact that he seems to go out of his way to show that he's not worthy of said attention.

It's your own fault, really, Eric.

Ron, is there some other venue in which Billy isn't a belligerent, cockwaving prick?

[Kyle Bennett]

Makes me wonder how you plan on getting other people, people who don't already know the things that a lot of Objectivists know, to be as rational as students of Objectivism can be.

Why do you keep insisting that I should be trying to do that?

Do you deny that in the case of human nature and ethics, you brought up people who you said could lacked the capacity to learn? Do you deny that in the case earlier of law you brought up people who do not have the capacity to exercise free will? Do you deny that those capacities are prerequisites for ethics and law?

I won't argue it with you, because it's not arguable, I just want to know if you deny it.

And my tone prior was eminently reasonable. Enjoy it while it lasts. You used to be abrasive, now you're just simpering.

[Ron Good]

By the way, I'm not posting these asides to defend Billy. He doesn't need it.

I'm doing it in the hopes that maybe one or two of you others might slow down, do some serious research, and get a clue. And I'm not doing that to help the "one or two of you".

It suits my purposes is all.

[Billy Beck]

"If a person of low moral character were to use the information you've provided here to steal your identity and make a bunch of fraudulent purchases in your name..."

{hah!} Let 'em try it. Believe me: I've fucked that prospect all the way up, through a whole adult lifetime of hard work and dedication.

"would you prosecute this person under the law?"

The truth: this is one of those "how do you know how you'll behave until you actually get shot at?" questions. And -- as always -- you get to take or leave what I'm about to tell you.

I don't think so. Not the way law works, anymore. And I have enough experience with the state to understand a great deal more about my own strength than almost everyone here can remotely imagine.

I bloody hope not, and I have good reason to sustain the hope.

"If so does that make you a flaccid hypocrit?"

{shrug} You can take the first element of the evaluation with The Girl With The Earl Scheib Hair. For the rest of it, yes: I see no way around that.

[VM]

"And my tone prior was eminently reasonable. Enjoy it while it lasts."

Does this mean that you, too, are gonna get all tuff gai on us?

[Jake Boone]

Believe me: I've fucked that prospect all the way up, through a whole adult lifetime of hard work and dedication.

Does this mean you've got lousy credit?

[Timothy]

And I have enough experience with the state to understand a great deal more about my own strength than almost everyone here can remotely imagine.

So if we strike you down you'll become more powerful than we can possibly fathom?

[Billy Beck]

"See, the unfortunate part in all of this is that, no matter what, you get to keep your rights as long as you can defend them."

Very well, then. There is no reason in the world for moral outrage over sixty million dead under Lenin and Stalin, or, say, the murder of Anne Frank. In all those cases, we're talking about people whose defense of their rights was unsuccessful, and we can just forget it all.

Well done. You've just cleansed the conscience of the whole post-modern world. I'm sure they'll appreciate it, going forward.

[Jennifer]

Seriously, Billyboy: if you make good on your mighty Ich bin ein mann threat, what is the proper moral response for me, in your opinion? Do I call the cops, or find friends to beat you? If my friends are not capable of doing so, then is it morally acceptable to call the police?

What if I or my friends shoot you instead? Can we do so with a legally registered weapon, or does it have to be an illegal gun purchased without government knowledge?

[Timothy]

Note to self: Don't approve Billy's HELOC.

[Ayn_Randian]

Do you deny that in the case of human nature and ethics, you brought up people who you said could lacked the capacity to learn? Do you deny that in the case earlier of law you brought up people who do not have the capacity to exercise free will? Do you deny that those capacities are prerequisites for ethics and law?

Oh Jesus, with friends like these...

Look, dude, I brought them up because the philosophy has holes in these very areas. Yes, you need free will and learning to have ethics and law. My point was there exist people without that capacity who still have the right to life, being humans and all, and there are still not answers on what's to be done with them, how their rights are going to be defended.

Why do you keep insisting that I should be trying to do that?

Because in the long run, and I know this is hard to face, you only get to keep your rights as long as you can convince those around you that you have them. Like I said before, you can be as morally in the clear as you want to be, but if you can't convince the masses, the mob, the tribe that you have rights they're not going to let you keep them.

You used to be abrasive, now you're just simpering.

Seriously, I don't give a shit what you think I'm doing...your fucking opinion doesn't matter to me one whit.

[VM]

Timothy - you beat me to it. hrumph.

[Billy Beck]

"Lousy credit?"

Let me put it to you this way: the last time I heard, a long time ago, the IRS wanted a hundred and six thousand of my favorite dollars. Think about that.

I have no credit, as it's understood today.

~~~~~

I'm going to leave this desk for a while. Everybody should do their worst while I'm gone. I'll deal with it later.

[Timothy]

Have fun chasing the dragon, Billy!

[VM (Ritter der Kokosnuss)]

"Everybody should do their worst "

neeh! neeh! neeh!

neeh!

neeh!

[Timothy]

VM - sorry, you know, banking.

[Ayn_Randian]

There is no reason in the world for moral outrage over sixty million dead under Lenin and Stalin, or, say, the murder of Anne Frank. In all those cases

Oh you are being deliberately obtuse. Is there any denying that overwhelming force can make your rights obsolete?

we can just forget it all.

That would, of course, be the biggest mistake of all. Reminding people that the suppression of the exercise of rights is what causes horrors like the ones you site is half of what keeps the world at bay right now, Billy.

What, you didn't think that society came ready to go, did you? That it didn't have to make some unfortunate, very painful and horrendous mistakes to understand important lessons about men's freedoms?

[VM]

actually the Star Wars. hrumphity again.

/kicks self, misses, but, ooh, that was fun.

(NEEH!)

[Kyle Bennett]

Yes, you need free will and learning to have ethics and law. My point was there exist people without that capacity who still have the right to life,

Did you not even see that contradiction as you typed it? Hell, it should have slapped you in the face so hard it left a welt.

you only get to keep your rights as long as you can convince those around you that you have them.

Are you willing to die by that premise? Because that's the only place it can lead. Wear your chains lightly, my friend, because they are of your own making.

And if you jump to the conclusion that the only alternative is blind violence, you've merely traded those chains for a rope around your neck.

Seriously, and I am talking to you now, I know you don't give a shit what I think, but do you give a shit what you think?

[VM]

"My point was there exist people without that capacity who still have the right to life,

Did you not even see that contradiction as you typed it"

physically and mentally compromised people, for example.

but the contradiction did slap me and leave a welt, but on my bottom.

and it was goooooooood.

[Timothy]

Man, those contradictions get all the action. Also, Kyle, your mom is a bitch. A big fat bitch, the biggest bitch in the whole wide world.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

HA!! TIMOTHY IS SLOWER THIS TIME. HA!!!!!

COULD WE SEE HIS MOM ON SUNDAY, TO CONFIRM WHAT THE NATURE OF BEING DIFFERENT IS?

[Eric the .5b]

By the way, I'm not posting these asides to defend Billy. He doesn't need it.

Yes, just as these words Are Not Meant For Us despite the apparent engagement with us, these defenses are not necessary despite the apparent necessity.

One tax-evading Objectivist and some number of allegedly-not-sockpuppet lickspittle fans - sounds like some socialist's half-assed modern parody of Rand.

[Ron Good]

Eric: quite true that my words were not meant for you. But thank you for reinforcing the point.

There are others here, and what I wrote was meant for some of them.

Ayn Randian: (serious question) As you understand it, what is the difference--or is there any--between a "right" and a mere "legal permission"?

[Eric the .5b]

quite true that my words were not meant for you

Yeah, yeah, we get it. It's for your own clique's self-amusement all those Incipient Anarchists y'all hope will fall in love with a belligerent, wheezing loony.

[Ron Good]

Yeah, yeah, we get it.

Not yet, *you* don't.

Who is this "we" you speak of, and on what authority? Try speaking just for yourself, for starters; that might help.

[Jennifer]

AAAAUUUUGH! I step away for the Internet for a little while and return to discover Billy gone! Don't go yet, Billy! Please? I still need you to enlighten me as to the proper anarchist's reaction I'm supposed to have when you make good on your manly threat to knock my teeth out before I go down on you, remember?

[VM]

Ron Good | December 17, 2007, 7:03pm | #
Who is this "we" you speak of, and on what authority? Try speaking just for yourself, for starters; that might help.

His people, of course. They do lunch frequently.

And he is speaking for himself, for starters. But we are unclear why that might help?

And what do their authority have to do with stuff? Or: who is (are) the "you" you were addressing, and on what authority?

In case you were wondering, I speak with the authority of a slightly-deranged (micro)economist who spends way too much time thinkin' about taints and BATIN.

p.s., your brother, Johnny B. rocks!!!!!

[Ron Good]

p.s., your brother, Johnny B. rocks!!!!!

yeah...I'm the blues guy in the family 🙂

[VM]

awesome!

[Jake Boone]

Who is this "we" you speak of, and on what authority?

Me, for one. Eric is more than welcome to speak on my behalf, and if I ever run across something he says on my behalf that I disagree strongly enough with, I'll retroactively retract my endorsement.

There. Now maybe you could answer the question instead of playing semantic games (if you've forgotten, the question was something along the lines of "is there a place where Billy acts like something other than a gigantic douche?").

[Ron Good]

is there a place where Billy acts like something other than a gigantic douche?

Perhaps you missed my earlier answer. The previous question's wording was: in some other venue, the alleged William Joseph Beck III is rational and argues in good faith...

and I responded:

Yes. Exactly--and not just in some other venue, and I've never seen an exception in over 10 years, including what you're seeing here today, but you might not recognize the truth of that (and that's not Billy's fault).

take for example his answer here/today:
Billy Beck | December 17, 2007, 3:34pm | #

In my view, Billy *always* argues in good faith.

[Jake Boone]

I didn't ask about good faith. I asked about not being a prick -- that's different. Despite Billy's apparent conviction, one doesn't have to be a raging asshole to make persuasive arguments. Keep in mind that I hold a pro-market anarchist philosophy, but I believe Billy's approach (and that of his hangers-on) is hugely counterproductive, because for every person he convinces with his swaggering douchebaggery, another dozen, predictably, write off anarchism forever as the province of swaggering douchebaggery.

I like the free market. Assholes, not so much. Makes me deduct "character points," if you will.

[Ron Good]

So you can trot out "prick" and "douchebaggery" and so on, 'cause you're just asking questions or calling it like you see it, but when Billy says "Bullshit" or "Fucking disgusting" and so on, he's swaggering and posing.

Fascinating.

And, sincerely, I'm glad you support a "pro-market anarchist philosophy". Me too.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THIS THREAD IS AWESOME!!!!!

[Jake Boone]

So you can trot out "prick" and "douchebaggery" and so on, 'cause you're just asking questions or calling it like you see it, but when Billy says "Bullshit" or "Fucking disgusting" and so on, he's swaggering and posing.

Yeah, pretty much. Of course, it helps that I'm using the words "prick" and "douchebaggery" to refer to the behavior of the person who started off with "bullshit" and "fucking disgusting," and didn't bother with any actual arguments until the next goddamned day.

If you want to declare (or, more accurately, imply) that the guy who comes in and shits in the punchbowl equivalent to the guy who calls him a colossal prick for doing so, well, there's not much I can do about that, I suppose.

Fascinating indeed.

[Ernest Brown]

AR,

Thank you for your letter, but I see that you have continued on the conversation at REASON. Bearing in mind Billy's admonition about speaking for others, might -I- suggest that you take a look at your own conceptual conundrum, namely how you can spin the dross of your own self-admitted ignorance into the gold of an involuntary collectivist grouping that does the judging about "retaliatory" violence?

There ARE ways in which the collective actions of individuals attain a higher level of success and rationality than the actions of just one, but they involve the very market forces that you and Mrs. Hsieh deny are applicable. Thus, one can only conclude that you have not found a way out of the vale of ignorance.

[Ron Good]

I actually thought, early on in this thread, it would have been obvious why Billy thought NORML's position was fucking disgusting, and I also thought that REASON's readers would have understood why he thought that way without much if any discussion being needed.

So--as I see it--NORML shit in the punchbowl, and I thought Billy was right when he said that was FD.

I was freakin' astonished when J sub D chimed in with: "What is so disgusting about a business 'paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees.'" as a response to Billy's statement, and I thought it was exceedingly apropriate when Billy responded with: "J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum"--after all, this is a REASON magazine forum, not the usual stomping ground of "Interventionists-R-Us.

Perhaps, however, Billy should have just referred Mr J sub D to Bastiat or Rothbard or von Mises (for starters) and let it go at that.

[Billy Beck]

An Kantian: "Oh you are being deliberately obtuse. Is there any denying that overwhelming force can make your rights obsolete?"

"Obsolete" is a concept from which only a fool or idiot would approach the concept of rights. And this is what you wrote:

"See, the unfortunate part in all of this is that, no matter what, you get to keep your rights as long as you can defend them."

That's ridiculous. A person has a right to his property even after it's been stolen from him in an unsuccessful defense of his right to his property. A successful violation of rights does nothing to "obsolete" them. This is, after all, why we prosecute thieves. (Note: don't hand me any rot about the state underpinning the word "prosecute" here. It doesn't.) If rights were so dependent on their successful defense as you say, then there would be no point reason to pursue a thief or a murderer after the crime: no moral conclusion on which to act against the perp after the fact.

You haven't thought any of this through.

And you really should retire your net.tag. It's quite disgraceful of you.

[Ernest Brown]

Billy,

"Tell me you didn't see it coming, too, E."

I had my suspicions.

"'Love it or leave it.' As if he owns it.
When is this pretense ever going to end?"

The crack of doom, probably.

I suppose that if they want to focus on petty trivialities, one more shiny object won't hurt them:

http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=P3310_0_1_0

[Billy Beck]

For Christ's goddamned sake, already. Now, we're cat-blogging. Jesus. What next?

[Jake Boone]

I actually thought, early on in this thread, it would have been obvious why Billy thought NORML's position was fucking disgusting, and I also thought that REASON's readers would have understood why he thought that way without much if any discussion being needed.

If everyone here were a market anarchist -- which, I believe you will admit, they are not -- then, yes, Billy's terse verdict would have been perfectly understandable, even if arguable.

J sub D asked a valid question; while I think most folks on H&R would be disgusted by the fact that the business is required to pay taxes, insurance, etc., it's something of a stretch to expect widespread disgust on the level Billy displayed (a "syphilis cocktail"? Really?) at the mere fact that the business was complying, just like "Patrick Chkoreff" reports doing in this very thread (not that there was any hint of outrage at Patrick's recognition of reality).

To most libertarians, I imagine, playing off one level of government against the other seems a reasonable defensive tactic under the circumstances. But when J sub D asked for clarification (without, I might add, a hint of invective), he was met with:

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

That was when the turd hit the punchbowl, in my opinion. With that in mind, I've fixed the quote below for you.

[...] after all, this is a REASON magazine forum, not the usual stomping ground of "Interventionists-R-Us. Strike the Root.

[Elliot]

Jake: ...for every person he convinces with his swaggering douchebaggery, another dozen, predictably, write off anarchism forever as the province of swaggering douchebaggery.

So?

Why do you desire the approval of people who make such simplistic judgments?

[Ernest Brown]

"For Christ's goddamned sake, already. Now, we're cat-blogging. Jesus. What next?"

Beats me. I'm just showing them that you're really a sweet huggable guy who wuvs widdle kitties, in addition to having styling taste in casual wear, loving and respecting your mom, etc. After all, those are the REALLY important things, not Ron's silly and foolish little point about how NORML's actions should be repugnant to anyone with a pretense of appreciating classical liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism.

[Billy Beck]

"(a 'syphilis cocktail'? Really?)"

That's right. "Really".

Mixed-premises are no way to go through politics.

[Richard Nikoley]

B said, about his SS:

"I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that I first published all that in Usenet at least ten years ago, when I was living in metro Atlanta."

It was at least that, the first time I saw it. Could have been as early as '95 or so.

I'm just catching up still, so this may have been hashed out. To the rest of you, your amazement at Billy's behavior here doesn't compare to my amazement that you didn't do your homework on him a bit first, because he's been at this for a dozen years, at least, and BBSs before that. If you believe he doesn't know exactly what he's doing you are surely deluding yourselves.

I've watched this very thing; many, many times in a dozen years.

I've also met Billy a coupla times, face to face and I don't think for a second that Elizabeth wouldn't melt (in a flattering, self-respecting way) in Billy's very intense presence.

[Billy Beck]

{hah} You can be a real asshole, Ernest. I love it.

Man, I said no smiley-faces.

[Thomas Robinson]

I've also met Billy a coupla times, face to face and I don't think for a second that Elizabeth wouldn't melt (in a flattering, self-respecting way) in Billy's very intense presence.

Funnily enough, people said similar things about Charles Manson.

I've watched this very thing; many, many times in a dozen years.

Awww, it's like you're part of his Family.

[Ginslinger]

What's natural is the ability to learn. That, however, say nothing about the values necessary to live like a human being instead of a predator.

Sorry, doesn't answer the question: What makes a human being? It's east enough to make that argumnent, but since you and your boys don't seem to agreee on the word "people,"? we gots problems on your "objectivist" credes. The fact is, you have yet to confront any of my objective-language take downs of you.

The fact of the mater is that I, like Jennifer, et al., think you are full of sound anf fury, signifying nothing.

(Plus, I've had a case of beer, and still make more sense than you and your buddies).

[Billy Beck]

You're not going to get away with that, Rich.

I guess the drinks are on me next time we get together.

~~~~~

To anyone else who's had anything nice to say about me:

You evil bastards. I've spent over three decades of backbreaking work at wrecking my reputation, and I am not about to have all undone now.

I do appreciate you, though.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

THIS THREAD SHALL NOT REACH 626 POSTS. THIS THREAD SHALL NOT TAKE MY CROWNING GLORY! MY HAM TEARS SHALL FORM A GREAT TORRENT, A MIGHTY RIVER THAT SHALL WASH AWAY YOUR BLASPHEMOUS PRESUMPTION IN A SALTY, HAM-SCENTED DELUGE!

[Ron Good]

...Ron's silly and foolish little point about how NORML's actions should be repugnant to anyone with a pretense of appreciating classical liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism

LOL 😉

[Jake Boone]

Why do you desire the approval of people who make such simplistic judgments?

I don't understand why you don't already know the answer to this question, but here goes:

Because if a free-market philosophy is embraced by only a tiny minority, we will never move closer to a free market. Unlike Billy's little band of philosopher-kings, I'd rather try to do my part to move society toward a free market than wander around the web waving my dick in everyone's face.

I really think you're all helping to torpedo the chances of anyone -- including yourselves -- ever achieving greater freedom than they have right now.

Maybe that's on purpose, because more freedom would mean that the bloody revolution fantasy you wank over would be longer in coming, or maybe it's because in some sick, twisted way you think people are more likely to listen to your arguments when you act like you think you're the fucking Jack-Booted Fuehrer of Proper Anarchistic Thought; the reasons don't matter. The fact is, you're hurting the cause of freedom, so I think you're all a bunch of pathetic sons of bitches who need a good crotch-kicking.

Kindly fuck off.

EDIT: I don't give a good goddamn how long Billy's been actively wandering around being a prick. If people like you are his legacy, I'm not going to shed any tears about not being in his club.

[Kyle Bennett]

Hey, I hear it's just like usenet over here. Well, the thread has been measured in days, but it's still far too polite for the comparison.

And Ernest, that just wasn't fair, letting them know he's nicer to cats than he is to them, just because cats are more honest.

[GinSlinger]

I'm just catching up still, so this may have been hashed out. To the rest of you, your amazement at Billy's behavior here doesn't compare to my amazement that you didn't do your homework on him a bit first, because he's been at this for a dozen years, at least, and BBSs before that. If you believe he doesn't know exactly what he's doing you are surely deluding yourselves.

Dondero??

Doooonderoooooooooo??

Seriously, Donderoooooooo?

[Kyle Bennett]

To anyone else who's had anything nice to say about me:

You evil bastards. I've spent over three decades of backbreaking work at wrecking my reputation, and I am not about to have all undone now.

Well, I for one have tried my damnedest to refrain from putting lie to your black-as-coal-hearted rep. But for what it's worth, I know you must get down to my neck of the woods once in a while, and I owe you a beer or two as well - at least. Just for justice's sake.

[GinSlinger]

I'm just catching up still, so this may have been hashed out. To the rest of you, your amazement at Billy's behavior here doesn't compare to my amazement that you didn't do your homework on him a bit first, because he's been at this for a dozen years, at least, and BBSs before that. If you believe he doesn't know exactly what he's doing you are surely deluding yourselves.

No, no, really, you're making me laugh 'til I cry. Are you all, really, no, seriously, really, DONDEEEEERRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

'Cause if you are, you have, undeniably won troll of the year. Oh, and Billy bud, I know (and am close to) someone with a $2MM Les Paul collection. Figure out who it is, and you might just get one.

Dondero??

Doooonderoooooooooo??

Seriously, Donderoooooooo?

[GinSlinger]

Oh, and absolutely most important: What is the "natural state of man" and where does it come from? Have you, yourself investigated it? Or, are you accepting arguements from "authority"?

BTW, 'til you knock over a Brinks truvk--you're all just posers!!

[Richard Nikoley]

"I like the free market. Assholes, not so much. Makes me deduct "character points," if you will."

Fine. As you will. I like the free market, and I like certain "assholes" so long as they know how to chart a course and navigate it. Me? I'm just a smartass, but I'm working on asshole.

[Ernest Brown]

"EDIT: I don't give a good goddamn how long Billy's been actively wandering around being a prick. If people like you are his legacy, I'm not going to shed any tears about not being in his club."

Translation:

"Sniff, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and if enough people REALLY REALLY LIKE ME, I'll get a minimal-state pony."

[Richard Nikoley]

"Funnily enough, people said similar things about Charles Manson."

Should I care? Hitler's mom loved him to pieces, I'm sure. Does your mom love you?

"Awww, it's like you're part of his Family."

You know, we get pissed at each other about every six months, like clockwork. Hopefully, we each see it in a larger context, that we're ultimately our own men, and we get it resolved, like men -- like we ether come to some level of agreement or take refuge in the fact that neither are going to send goons to either's house as our agent.

And if you think your snide "Awww" in any way describes my level of admiration for That Man, you're mistaken. Neither will any or your predictable and further schoolyard taunting motivate me to otherwise "moderate" my cheerleading, when I think it's warranted.

That said, I handle things differently than Billy. If I stick around, and I think you or anyone else is worth dealing with, you'll see.

[Billy Beck]

While the action is breaking down to patented bullshit among the Munchkins and I'm trying to set fire to my own admiration society: "Oh, and Billy bud, I know (and am close to) someone with a $2MM Les Paul collection."

How the fuck old are you? What on earth is your stupid point?

Another thought, while I'm pensive:

Matt Welch: I was really sorry to hear that you have to move to Washington, mate, but very much looking forward to your stewardship of the magazine. I very much agree with someone who recently sniffed at Gillespie's effort. Let me only say that I think a great deal of that is reflected in the commentors all over this blog. I always have.

You would be doing good work to beat this place into a bit more serious shape.

[Timothy]

Oh, and absolutely most important: What is the "natural state of man" and where does it come from?

Naked in my consumption chamber, obviously.

Billy: Is the height of that horse giving you a little bit of delirium or is the syphilis finally cutting holes in your brain?

[Billy Beck]

"Just me and the pygmy pony, over by the mental-floss bush..."

[Richard Nikoley]

While waiting and watching for something to grab onto, a bit, here's something for your all's consideration. But feel free to taunt.

Yea, Billy's been "rude." So what? Are you all so young and inexperienced in life that you don't sense anything beyond the "vitriol," without even a whisper of a thought that by thins point, knowing now something of his history that he might already (long ago, actually) have you exactly where he wants you.

You can chalk that up to bravado, if you like, but just remember that an assessment like that exists only because sometimes it really isn't a ruse. But feel free to call it however you like.

You all post here -- and I can tell pretty easily -- as though you're really on the cusp of this REASON thing. And I'll tell you that I received my first issue of the print subscription in 1990.

And Ernest Brown and I crossed paths on COMPUSERVE in 1992 or '93, even before I crossed Billy on USENET in '94 or so.

It's meaningless, you say? Perhaps. Today's facts are today's facts. It's true. "The Internet is libertarian leaning, you celebrate, with a tinge of pride. Have you any idea of what people were kicking commie ass in 1990 and after, people who are now libertarians and anarchists rather than entitlement cheerleaders.

Dismiss it. Put it out of your minds. Go ahead, and don't even try to figure out if some people along the way figured out how you do that, and make it stick.

Don't give it another thought.

[Ron Good]

Jake:

re this exchange:

I actually thought, early on in this thread, it would have been obvious why Billy thought NORML's position was fucking disgusting, and I also thought that REASON's readers would have understood why he thought that way without much if any discussion being needed.

If everyone here were a market anarchist -- which, I believe you will admit, they are not -- then, yes, Billy's terse verdict would have been perfectly understandable, even if arguable.

J sub D asked a valid question; while I think most folks on H&R would be disgusted by the fact that the business is required to pay taxes, insurance, etc., it's something of a stretch to expect widespread disgust on the level Billy displayed (a "syphilis cocktail"? Really?) at the mere fact that the business was complying, just like "Patrick Chkoreff" reports doing in this very thread (not that there was any hint of outrage at Patrick's recognition of reality).

Exactly what is valid about J sub D's question? Billy wasn't commenting on the fact that businesses paid taxes. Billy's point was simply and obviously only that NORML is a bunch of disgusting cretins for attempting to buy off the feds with money that isn't theirs in the first place. JD's question is no more valid to *that* discussion than me asking "How do you feel about people who drive Midnight Blue Cadillacs?" at a symposium on the Zapruder film.

So, J sub D missed the fucking point of Billy's post and followed by asking a completely irrelevant question about companies paying taxes.

And you wonder why Billy responded with: "J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum."

Or (you tell me) how in the hell did J sub D go from this:

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

With friends like that, I might as well splash down a syphilis cocktail on the rocks.

Fucking disgusting."

to this:

What is so disgusting about a business "paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees."

?

[Matt]

Kyle,

'The state is not the root of the "eeevil", it's the symptom.'

I hadn't put it together that way before now. Thank you.

[Ron Good]

Ran as a Libertarian candidate in a Canadian federal election in 1984. Think I met Billy online in '95 or so. Ran into REASON maybe 1978 or so. Ayn Rand, Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat et al...maybe 1976.

...just sayin'. It's no big thing. There were folks doing serious work way before I caught on.

But Richard is still making a good point. And it's generous and thoughtful of him.

My respect, Richard.

[Billy Beck]

Since we're taking history notes:

I read Robert LeFevre in 1969, IIRC. I was thirteen years old. Went swiftly through Rand's "Selfishness" and "Capitalism" that same year or very shortly after. Intense discussion on the first "hate radio" (that's commie for conservative talk-radio) station I ever heard, and what must have been one of the first ever: KTRG Honolulu; 24-hour conservative/libtertarian talk radio. I used to listen to the rational anarchists way too late at night for my age.

By the tenth grade, I was at total war with my civics teacher by the third day of the class and it never, ever stopped. I failed that class in blinding Technicolor and it's one of my proudest moments. That commie bastard never laid a finger on me when it came to ideas.

"I myself was spared the intellectual humiliation of a college education."

(H.L. Mencken -- and me too.)

I spent a good part of the 70's getting my career-feet under me, but never stopped reading things that made sense -- or taking slash-&-burn marginalia on things that didn't. And I never kept my mouth shut -- ever -- when I saw the least chance of striking a blow for freedom.

By the mid-80's, I was all over Hayek and Mises, Keynes, Hutt, et. al., moving through economics on a loop back through Rand toward all kinds of technical philosophy. Copleston as a chart, and the stuff that he didn't cover, like some post-modern French assholes. Continental Pragmatism. etc. I connected my first computer online in 1986, and promptly went looking for a fight. Always found it.

By 1990, I was hanging at a BBS in ATL that included Bruce McQuain (from QandO). That place was full of writers: you couldn't get in unless you passed the owner's test. Bruce and I had a great workout, for which I will always be grateful. He, and everyone else, made me think about organizing ideas in writing more than I ever had before.

My first internet account in 1995: Usenet was shocking. Never in my life had I seen such concentrated and deliberate mendacity and it was just about always commies. I recognized the traditions as I cranked up serious study of Sovietology: it was Lunacharksy's children out there. You had to see the Whitwater group, into which I waded as "Philosophical Liaison", putting the Ozark Long March to work as an object-lesson in principles in practice. That was wild: it's not for nothin' that it was called "the first war in cyberspace". It really was. We have John Huang's fingerprints on it to prove it.

And here we are: in blogs, and it's the same ol' bullshit.

...except that every once in a while, I see a small light open up in the gathering Endarkenment: a whole culture of motherfuckers who cannot or will not think.

When that happens, it makes the whole weird trip eminently worthwhile.

[Richard Nikoley]

Oh, Billy, you're far too modest. Even though you put it right there on your sidebar for them to find, I doubt any of them checked out your "Recommended Reading."

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P942

I'm wondering if even one of them has read (much less annotated and quotes form) a single one of those volumes.

You were just such easy prey. Why bother to understand the why?

[Elliot]

Jake: The fact is, you're hurting the cause of freedom...

That is not a fact. It's your ignorant opinion, because you fail to consider that the people whose panties are bunched up over the lack of niceties have, from the beginning, already compromised on the very principles on which any self-respecting "cause of freedom" must stand.

[Kyle Bennett]

Matt,

You're welcome. Happy to help.

[Richard Nikoley]

Duh.

I just noticed that after however many comments the link to my blog crashes. Not essential, but certainly annoying for anyone who wanted to check up.

Fixed now.

[lunchstealer]

Hoo dawgy.

I haven't seen quality crazy like this in a good long while. dhex is right. This thread should be included in the next Norton's Anthology as some sort of Flannery-O'Connor inspired internet gothic short story.

BB, I hereby crown you King of all Londinium. Please see the receptionist for your shiny hat.

[Billy Beck]

"BB, I hereby crown you King of all Londinium."

"If nominated, I will laugh right in your face. If elected, you'll fuckin'-aye never find me."

[Jennifer]

I guess Billy the Brave's not going to answer my question after all. A tiny little woman's all it takes to make his bad ass back down. What a surprise.

[Ernest Brown]

"I guess Billy the Brave's not going to answer my question after all. A tiny little woman's all it takes to make his bad ass back down. What a surprise."

Girls just can't resist kitty-lovin' lighting techs. It renews my faith in romance.

[Billy Beck]

Honey, did you ever have a man look you up & down once, say in a bar, and then walk away and leave you standing there with a big wide drill-hole in your hopes and dreams?

Have an ice day.

[Ernest Brown]

"...then walk away and leave you standing there with a big wide drill-hole in your hopes and dreams."

Reliable reports indicate that the was Zippy the Pinhead, even fictional microcephalics have better taste and higher standards than that.

[Ernest Brown]

"he was"

[lunchstealer]

Oh, don't worry Billy. The duties of office are exactly what you're already doing. The coronation was really just a formality. Keep up the good work, Your Majesty.

[lunchstealer]

Seriously, though. Imagine all the mutant libertarian flipper babies BB and Donderooooooooo could have.

[lunchstealer]

BB His Royal Highness and Donderooooooooo

Sorry, didn't mean to offend Your Majesty.

[Jeffrey Quick]

"Jennifer | December 17, 2007, 4:58pm | #
I hope he at least uses Viagra first. I'm good, very damned good, but you can't reasonably expect me to be all Jesus regarding his Little Lazarus down there."

Given your "thought" processes, dear, I think the better comparison is your Pontius Pilate to Billy's Jesus.

[Ernest Brown]

Jeffrey,

"Given your "thought" processes, dear, I think the better comparison is your Pontius Pilate to Billy's Jesus."

To paraphrase an old St. Louie boy, "Jennifer is the dumbest ditz, mixing stupidity and desire..."

[Jennifer]

Oh, Billy, I'd hoped you could do better than that. I ask a question with sincere repercussions for the Sacred Anarchist Cause (namely, the proper response to violence or threats thereof), and the best you can do is some pathetic implication that I'm suffering unrequited lust for you?

[Timothy]

This thread is like pure, distilled joy. Or, at least, what pure distilled joy would be if it weren't already called "whiskey".

[Ernest Brown]

"Oh, Billy, I'd hoped you could do better than that."

He can, sweetums, which is why you don't rate. It's not his fault that you confused a rhetorical question with a statement of desire.

[Jeffrey Quick]

"Ayn_Randian | December 17, 2007, 3:32pm | #
dictatorial control over interstate commerce

You know what's a fun game? Finding who can push out the most overbearing and reaching arguments ever.

YOU WIN, for equating "regulating" with "dictatorial control". "

When you can tell me what I can do with my wheat because it's just like wheat that could have crossed a state line, that's dictatorial control. And that was justified by the "goddamed piece of paper", per SCOTUS.

One man's regulation is his victim's dictatorial control. Putting a bullet through your head would likely have a salutary effect on this thread; would that be regulation, or dictatorship?

[Jeffrey Quick]

"To paraphrase an old St. Louie boy, "Jennifer is the dumbest ditz, mixing stupidity and desire...""

...stirring dull roots with yellow rain.

[Richard Nikoley]

From Matt, quoting Kyle:

"'The state is not the root of the "eeevil", it's the symptom.'

I hadn't put it together that way before now. Thank you."

This is a crucial thing to understand, and it's at the root of why -- as we see here -- most limited-government "libertarians" have no choice but to accept the very premises every commie on the planet uses, and ultimately, when pushed to it by someone like Billy, will soon enough start arguing just like a commie.

It's inevitable.

The root of the problem is laziness and dishonesty, both a product of two of the basest human emotions/motivations: fear and greed. To state it another way: humanity involves, most simply, the conscious and principled discipline and control of fear and greed, which one has no choice but to experience as a higher biological organism.

A good way to think about how the non-human homo sapiens respond to fear and greed is that they seek to hoard profits and spread losses. The chief motivation is laziness and chief tool to satisfy all is dishonesty. The interesting thing about dishonesty -- self, other directed, and institutionalized -- is that the better one is at it (the more dishonest) the less detectable and more powerful it is.

What's interesting about laziness is how hard people work at not producing tradeable values. Consider a bum on the exit ramp day in, day out. I've seen some of them work their asses off at begging in the hot, cold, and rainy for years on end. How much easier it would be to work at a job.

It's the labor theory of value. The lazy look to a world where raw physical activity, disconnected from any other requirements, is of paramount value.

Back to the current morass, here. To look at it in its plainest form, there are those advocating that some fears are just too great not to force others to pay for general anesthesia, and the argument turns on which anesthesia and in what dosage is most "efficient" and "useful." Hey, maybe we can "privatize" the production and delivery of it, which still doesn't address the root laziness, dishonesty, individual responsibility or accountability.

Then there are those, "the nouveaux ancaps," who rightfully understand that you can't hold consistently to individualist principle and advocate any degree of state coercion, but have failed to understand that the state is an effect of a deeper problem (as outlined above). They think that you have to win friends and influence people by trying to explain that life would be so much better without the state.

But you can't truly understand anarchism until you accept that it doesn't matter what society "would be like" without the state. It's not the issue. The issue is that nobody has any right to chain me to their fears or satisfy their greed at my involuntary expense and anyone who thinks otherwise, even just a little tine bit can just go fuck right off and there's simply no kind way to put that.

[Ernest Brown]

"But you can't truly understand anarchism until you accept that it doesn't matter what society "would be like" without the state. It's not the issue. The issue is that nobody has any right to chain me to their fears or satisfy their greed at my involuntary expense and anyone who thinks otherwise, even just a little tine bit can just go fuck right off and there's simply no kind way to put that."

Exactly, once you start putting forth pragmatic arguments with no principled conceptual/rational justification, Bob's your uncle and Hillary is your health care professional.

[Richard Nikoley]

I said:

"A good way to think about how the non-human homo sapiens respond to fear and greed is that they seek to hoard profits and spread losses."

Those who know me'll "get it," but I could have stated it better. Rather than "hoard profits," that should be something like: "gain the unearned."

[Jennifer]

He can, sweetums, which is why you don't rate. It's not his fault that you confused a rhetorical question with a statement of desire.

Since Billy now needs Ernest and Jeffrey to make his arguments for him, I'll redirect my question away from Jesus and to his two Beloved Disciples: if your master makes good on his manly and impressive threat to knock my teeth out in order to reduce the pain he'll feel during the subsequent blowjob, what is (from an anarchist's viewpoint), the proper response for me? Seriously: would it be acceptable under the circumstances for me to call the police and support a government prosecution of Billy? If this turns out to be unnecessary due to skillful application of my second amendment rights, do I toss his body onto my garbage heap, or turn it over to the authorities in deference to The Law? If the latter, am I destroying freedom by compliance with the laws regarding human-corpse disposal?

For that matter, is it even proper for me to speak of "second amendment rights?" That might be misconstrued as support for the idea that the government somehow "grants" these rights.

[Kyle Bennett]

They think that you have to win friends and influence people by trying to explain that life would be so much better without the state.

And I've been trying to explain to people that this formulation reverses cause and effect - it puts the cart before the horse. If the state is only an effect, taking it away does nothing to affect the cause. Think instead: the state would be so much less of a problem if life were better.

In other words, make the state irrelevant, then it goes away. Make yourself free of your fear and greed and need to placate the moochers, then the state becomes less relevant. Help enough people do the same and the state becomes both irrelevant and ineffective.

But you can't truly understand anarchism until you accept that it doesn't matter what society "would be like" without the state.

Right. Ask instead what are the kinds of political organization are possible to a society built on human nature. This society without the state would be just like this society - because it is the cause of the modern state, not primarily the result of it.

Libertarians are constantly saying that the state is not the source of freedom and of rights. Yet when it comes down to concretes, they continue to act by exactly the premise that it is.

[Kyle Bennett]

Make yourself free of your fear and greed and need to placate the moochers

And another phrase for that last is: guilt.

[Jennifer]

Libertarians are constantly saying that the state is not the source of freedom and of rights.

So hypothetically: do I have the "right" to keep my teeth in my mouth? If so, is this a natural right, a right granted by the state, or a right granted by the fact that Billy hasn't got around to knocking them out yet?

[Kyle Bennett]

Jen,

If Billy has shit in the punch bowl, as you term it, why do you keep drinking the punch?

[Jennifer]

If Billy has shit in the punch bowl, as you term it, why do you keep drinking the punch?

I didn't term it; you're confusing me with someone else. And I really do want an answer to my question. I'm sorry that your master lacks the courage to offer one, but I'll ask again: if your master makes good on his impressive, manly threat to knock out my teeth, what response can I give that will be in keeping with proper anarchist principles? Would I be harming the Cause of Human Freedom if I let the state prosecute him, or do I simply have my friends take care of it?

And if I shoot him in self-defense, am I supposed to comply with the laws concerning the reporting and disposal of a human corpse, or are such laws inherently erosive to the cause of freedom?

[lunchstealer]

Ok, so if Jennifer is Pontius Pilate, and Billy is Jesus, that would make Ernest and Jeffrey the Holy Ghost and The Father, respectively. So that makes Kyle John the Baptist, and Dondero would be Muhammed, or possibly Joseph Smith.

So VM would be HL Mencken, dhex would be ee cummings, of course, only scarier and funnier, and AR would be, say, Nero, and I think Jake gets to be Salome. J sub D, do you wanna be a Pharisee, or do you have something else in mind?

[lunchstealer]

How are we gonna fit all this into the Dan T pantheon?

[Richard Nikoley]

"And I really do want an answer to my question."

Well, let's be honest about it, K?

If you sincerely wanted an answer in the context of individual rights, you'd have realized about 10 iterations ago that the successful way to get questions asked is to loose they hyperbolic rhetoric.

What you really want is an answer to your question, not the or a question.

Everyone's mileage may differ, but in 15 years or so I think the incessant restating of the same manipulative and dishonest question to the same person is about the dumbest debating tactic I've ever seen. Any review of that exchange shows it was clearly tit for tat: do this; will you blow me? sure, and I'll bite you; not if I knock your teeth out. The end.

Now, you're welcome to keep asking, but all Billy needs to do is two thing: the first is to let you keep asking and asking, and the second is to field all other honest questions. Eventually you'll stop and the record will demonstrate something quite obvious.

I'd love to eventually leave this thread with the firm belief you're not a moron. But hey; feel free.

[Ernest Brown]

"Since Billy now needs Ernest and Jeffrey to make his arguments for him"

Dear me, your mentation capacity is even lower than I could have possibly imagined. I'm -mocking- you, spud-dumpling, which is all you'll ever merit in life.

[Jennifer]

If you sincerely wanted an answer in the context of individual rights, you'd have realized about 10 iterations ago that the successful way to get questions asked is to loose they hyperbolic rhetoric.

If "they [sic] hyperbolic rhetoric" is synonymous with "being obnoxious and rude," I would suggest, in the words of your master, that you remove the beam from thine eye before concerning thyself with the splinter in mine own.

Any review of that exchange shows it was clearly tit for tat: do this; will you blow me? sure, and I'll bite you; not if I knock your teeth out.

Tit for tat, really? Which of my own personal tits equated to "I'll knock your teeth out?" Was it lefty or righty? (Seriously, though, that manly threat earned Billy some MAJOR admiration points here. It did!)

By the way, did your master ask you to backtrack on his behalf or did you do that on your own initiative? I'm guessing that he won't be teaching me a toothy (or is it toothless?) lesson after all, but I'm sure that one of his disciples is brave and manly enough to pick up the torch he dropped. So whence my right to my own teeth, or is this alleged right to dentition merely another delusion?

[Ernest Brown]

"I'd love to eventually leave this thread with the firm belief you're not a moron. But hey; feel free."

"She's" a fine example of failing the Turing test, to be sure.

[Jennifer]

You're doing it wrong, guys! When you're talking about a macho threat to knock out my teeth, it is I, the one who's actually been threatened, who's supposed to back down, remember? Not you! Stand tall! The future reputation of the philosophy of anarchy is riding on your manly shoulders, and the people reading this thread who thought "Wow, that Billy sure makes me want to be an anarchist just like him" are now thinking "but not when he and his friends combined lack sufficient balls to stand up to a little tiny woman on the Internet."

If you can't even stand your ground against me, how can you possibly expect to stand firm against The State?

[Timothy]

Well, that's better than failing the basic hygiene test or the "not living with your mother" test. Can I come over later, Ernest, I bet you guys have the BEST bukkake parties!

[Richard Nikoley]

Ernie:

Well the old "poor little me," "hey tough guy," and "take me to your leader" is such old saw, but maybe she doesn't know that yet.

Someone pointed out her lack of substantive contribution to the thread, which most others have managed at some level, in spite of the generally lousy signal/noise.

I guess she'll keep playing damsel in distress until she finds a rescuer. You wanna rescue her from herself, Ernie? Were you ever young and dumb enough to try?

[Jennifer]

I guess she'll keep playing damsel in distress until she finds a rescuer.

Shockingly, it turns out I don't need a rescuer after all. My attacker backed down. Wow. Who could possibly have known that threats of violence made by a skinny old bald guy on the Internet are not worth taking seriously?

[Timothy]

If anybody needs a contribution substantiated feel free to call Eric DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOO! He's always substantiating bigboy contributions, wink wink nudge nudge.

[Jeffrey Quick]

Rich dealt with this just fine, but:
Since Billy now needs Ernest and Jeffrey to make his arguments for him,

No, he doesn't. He can and has bitten your head off just fine, but your legs are still wiggling so weez cats is playing mouse hockey with you, 'cause it's fun.

I'll redirect my question away from Jesus and to his two Beloved Disciples: if your master makes good on his manly and impressive threat to knock my teeth out in order to reduce the pain he'll feel during the subsequent blowjob, what is (from an anarchist's viewpoint), the proper response for me?

Since you accepted his invitation to suck his dick, biting it would be a violation of the implicit agreement to treat Billy lovingly, and an initiation of force. One could argue whether the counterforce of knocking your teeth out was proportionate or not, but it would be deserved, as much as biting a rapist's dick would be deserved.

Seriously:
There's nothing serious about founding an argument on rhetorical hypotheticals, but if you want serious, up there it is. If you don't, then let me suggest that anyone who would get intimate with you would deserve anything he got, as society and the law frown on sexual relations with the retarded.

[Ernest Brown]

"I guess she'll keep playing damsel in distress until she finds a rescuer. You wanna rescue her from herself, Ernie? Were you ever young and dumb enough to try?"

They do seem to be excrementally obsessed, don't they? I suppose that since they're full of it, it has to come out somewhere.

[Timothy]

If you keep talking like that Jennifer, nothing untoward will happen! FEAR ME!

[Jennifer]

Since you accepted his invitation to suck his dick, biting it would be a violation of the implicit agreement to treat Billy lovingly, and an initiation of force.

Wow. Seriously? If cluelessness were publishing, you guys would be Gutenberg.

[lunchstealer]

Dear me, your mentation capacity is even lower than I could have possibly imagined. I'm -mocking- you, spud-dumpling, which is all you'll ever merit in life.

You do recognize that that's mutual, right?

I have to admit that you're an interesting change from the freepers that usually invade.

But really the "I'm more of a libertarian than you" thing was done to death by Dondero, so if you could steer clear of that line, we'd probably all find it easier to keep our interest levels up.

kthxbye

[Timothy]

This is sort of like beating up the retard in gym class: it feels good at the time, but later on there's nothing but shame.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Jennifer, I read Billy's post and he was only suggesting one possible solution to a certain logistical problem you mentioned. Take it or leave it, he was just being helpful.

Congratulations on your first glimmer of substance on this thread: your observation that rights are not granted by words on a piece of paper. Girl, that was awesome!

[Ernest Brown]

"Wow. Seriously? If cluelessness were publishing, you guys would be Gutenberg."

That, my friends, is the textbook example of unintentional irony.

Seriously, sulfur-lumps, I'd recommend getting some therapy for your obsessions with mastery and masochism.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Tit for tat, really?"

Clearly.

You're not being honest, yet, but here's a clue anyway: you initiated the hypothetical aggression. You asked something of Billy, he told you his condition. You upped the ante by including physical violence, and he responded in kind.

Since then, you've phrased your repeated question in a dishonest manner to imply that the teeth knocking hypothetical was completely out of the blue and unprovoked. Why you think that being dishonest about it will work for you I don't care to speculate about.

And you're welcome to keep taunting me all day long with speculations and insinuations you can't possibly know anything about. Perhaps you'll do so in order to see what convenient assumptions I'll invoke about you. Keep it up, for you never know. Perhaps you'll land another opportunity to ask a manipulative question three dozen times. That would be so much easier than putting in the effort to generate a modicum of signal.

[Jennifer]

This is sort of like beating up the retard in gym class: it feels good at the time, but later on there's nothing but shame.

No, it's more like making fun of the schizophrenic who keeps arguing with the dragons flying out of his ass. A century ago making fun of such a person would have been morally reprehensible, but now that medications like dopamine inhibitors are cheap and readily available, a guy who keeps arguing with the dragons in his ass is simply too irresponsible and lazy to make them go away.

[Timothy]

Man, you guys are great, can I borrow your balaclava?

[lunchstealer]

Actually, if you'll read carefully, she didn't mention biting, but it getting caught between her teeth. Y'know, like floss, only more herpatic.

[Ernest Brown]

"That would be so much easier than putting in the effort to generate a modicum of signal."

Everything looks like a whip, to a pathetic slave-obsessed punk like Jennifer. You're asking a willful mental comprachico to THINK, shame on you!

[Jeffrey Quick]

If cluelessness were publishing, you guys would be Gutenberg.

I don't get it. Are you saying we were the first ones here to be clueless? You're really too modest about your own achievements in that department.

[Cin]

Jennifer how is it that you consider Billy made the first threat, or have you forgotten you threatened his person first. "Caught in my teeth" was the first threat. You are most definitely playing the damsel in distress card to the hilt. However, I have been wondering if you infact have a coherent thought or question to offer in this thread. Your, ahem, question is getting quite tiresome and frankly you need to go onto something of a different approach here.

[Ernest Brown]

"This is sort of like beating up the retard in gym class: it feels good at the time, but later on there's nothing but shame."

Cheer up, lil' Timmy, maybe one day you'll get off of the short bus.

[Jeffrey Quick]

"This is sort of like beating up the retard in gym class: it feels good at the time, but later on there's nothing but shame."

No, it's more like making fun of the schizophrenic who keeps arguing with the dragons flying out of his ass. A century ago making fun of such a person would have been morally reprehensible, but now that medications like dopamine inhibitors are cheap and readily available, a guy who keeps arguing with the dragons in his ass is simply too irresponsible and lazy to make them go away.

So you admit you've stopped taking your meds?

[Ernest Brown]

"So you admit you've stopped taking your meds?"

They do say that the chief sign of insanity is repeating the same iteration over and over again and expecting a different result. Jennifer is bucking for poster-child status.

[Jennifer]

"Caught in my teeth" was the first threat.

No, dear, it's a "your dick is miniscule" comment.

I have been wondering if you infact have a coherent thought or question to offer in this thread.

That's what everybody's been saying to Poor Threatened Billy all along.

[Billy Beck]

Jennifer: you're making an almighty fool of yourself. Everyone can see exactly what happened.

Stop it. It's your best move.

[Ernest Brown]

"Stop it. It's your best move."

The poor child is obsessed with slavery and self-abuse. I doubt that she'll stop projectile vomiting on herself anytime soon.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer: you're making an almighty fool of yourself. Everyone can see exactly what happened.

Projection: not just for movie theaters anymore.

[Jeffrey Quick]

Funny how no one here took it that way. Have you had personal experience (in your doubtless wide personal experience) with penises the diameter of dental floss? None of the rest of us have ever seen one.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Actually, if you'll read carefully..."

You read carefully. Yea, I know, when you hear the beating of hooves, you think "ZEBRAS!"

Nonetheless, the clear implication in "caught between teeth," within the context of blowjob, is between uppers and lowers.

That Jennifer isn't clever or smart enough to make a "small dick" joke unambiguous isn't Billy's or anyone else's problem -- particularly so that it was in the context of an up-the-ante argument.

And even if the ambiguity was totally innocent, the honest thing to do would have been to cop to it once the "teeth knocking" comment came out, like: "oh, I see you thought I meant bite, but I meant teeny tiny."

Now, Billy may very well have understood what she meant and responded as he did anyway. I don't know.

[Cin]

Jennifer

Can't you read? Billy is saying alot and you've been missing every word. All of it! Go back and read again, I have no comprehension difficulties as I understand him perfectly. As a matter of fact his friends on here are spelling things out for you as well.

As for your comment on Billy's manhood, that's just deplorable!

[Jennifer]

Have you had personal experience (in your doubtless wide personal experience) with penises the diameter of dental floss? None of the rest of us have ever seen one.

Lose the beer belly and you will.

[Billy Beck]

Rich? I didn't care one way or another. I was out to light her up.

It worked. She's blazing like one of Nero's Christians.

[lunchstealer]

OK, so we need to appologize to these guys. They were unable to comprehend the nature of the caught-between-the-teeth concept as intended, and perceived it as a threat. He was afraid of mastication when he threatened to knock your teeth out.

It was all a misunderstanding. To be fair, he was probably thinking with his dick (a common enough situation for many men) which puts him at a severe disadvantage.

[Timothy]

Ernest: Why would I want to get off the short bus, dude, you're my favorite seat mate! I'm bad with new people, I can't be losing my seat buddy!

[Ernest Brown]

"Lose the beer belly and you will."

Since her other social and cognitive skills are doubtless on a par with her feeble attempts at repartee, it's easy to see why poor Jenny is so obsessed with Beck.

Give it up, child, he's let you down easy.

[Jennifer]

I was out to light her up. It worked. She's blazing like one of Nero's Christians.

Oh, Billy, you are a funny old man. And in order to have people take you seriously on the Internet, all you need to do is have your entourage join you!

By the way, how many new disciples have joined your circle as a result of this thread?

[Timothy]

Is this your helmet, Ernest? It isn't mine and I found it on our special seat.

[Ernest Brown]

"Ernest: Why would I want to get off the short bus, dude, you're my favorite seat mate! I'm bad with new people, I can't be losing my seat buddy!"

Gee, I see that the whiskey has kicked in on you. You'd better stick to decaf.

[Timothy]

I'm not joining Billy's Cult, I already worship the mighty Dan T!

[Cin]

It was all a misunderstanding. To be fair, he was probably thinking with his dick (a common enough situation for many men) which puts him at a severe disadvantage.

I don't think so! I'm not a man and I took it the same way. Don't side with stupidity.

[Jennifer]

Is this your helmet, Ernest?

If I recall correctly, the Candy Apple Helmet belongs to Billy. It's the one he's grabbing tightly because he's all afraid of the scary threatening things I might do to it.

[Ernest Brown]

"Oh, Billy, you are a funny old man. And in order to have people take you seriously on the Internet, all you need to do is have your entourage join you!

By the way, how many new disciples have joined your circle as a result of this thread?"

There she is with that master/slave dialectic again. It really is pitiful, Jennichen, you should seek help.

[Jennifer]

I don't think so! I'm not a man and I took it the same way. Don't side with stupidity.

Irony is fun.

[Jennifer]

There she is with that master/slave dialectic again.

"Disciple" is part of a "master/slave dialectic." Your knowledge of Christian theology is abysmal. Billy is Jesus, remember? At least that's what Jeffrey thinks.

[Ernest Brown]

"Irony is fun."

Now she's degenerated so much that she has to resort to plagiarizing others. You are a sad one, argon for brains.

[Cin]

Jennifer: If I recall correctly, the Candy Apple Helmet belongs to Billy. It's the one he's grabbing tightly because he's all afraid of the scary threatening things I might do to it.

Ok boys and girls, how about some intelligent conversation about the real subject at hand and to hell with this useless bull shit that keeps going and going like the energizer bunny. Or we could keep throwing horseshit up against the wall. The only end result with that will be just a whole lotta shit on the wall and nothing constructive accomplished

[Timothy]

Whiskey at this hour? No, amphetamines and spite are much better lunch time drugs! But stop being so loud, if you get us kicked off the bus again my mom is going to be PISSED!

[Jennifer]

You are a sad one, argon for brains.

I know you are, but what am I? Whoops! Wait! I forgot; on this thread, it's your side acting like my nine-year-old self.

Poor Billy. Poor anarchy. What's the world coming to when a man who threatens to knock a woman's teeth out isn't treated with proper respect?

[Timothy]

Wait, Argon? You know they use that to detect neutrino emissions. That's a weird element to pick for stupidity, it's just so NOBLE and all.

[Richard Nikoley]

"What's the world coming to when a man who threatens to knock a woman's teeth out isn't treated with proper respect?"

I'll give you this much, Jen: you certainly are a victim.

[Billy Beck]

She squeaks to Ernest:

"Your knowledge of Christian theology is abysmal."

Oh, dear.

The audacity of some peoples' ignorance is often very remarkable.

[GinSlinger]

Now, you're welcome to keep asking, but all Billy needs to do is two thing: the first is to let you keep asking and asking, and the second is to field all other honest questions.

But Billy won't answer my honest question about human nature, so why would we assume he will answer any "honest questions"?

[Jennifer]

Ok boys and girls, how about some intelligent conversation about the real subject at hand

Well, we tried that a few hundred posts ago, but then Billy started sputtering about how anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something, and then couldn't understand why the regulars here didn't welcome his boorishness with open arms, and things just went downhill from there.

But remember, as Billy himself said: he's not one of those fools who thinks mere voting will accomplish anything! No sir, he knows that the real way to bring about meaningful change is to go into Internet fora and annoy the regulars. Mmm! Can you smell that? It's the scent of newborn freedom!

[Jennifer]

That's a weird element to pick for stupidity, it's just so NOBLE and all.

I'm guessing it's supposed to be a nouveau variant of "airhead," but in that case "hydrogen" or "helium" would've been better than argon, IMO. The idea here, to craft a successful insult, is to include lightweight connotations.

[Cin]

Poor Billy. Poor anarchy. What's the world coming to when a man who threatens to knock a woman's teeth out isn't treated with proper respect?

Please, cut the shit already. You are making it appear that women don't have a brain in their heads beyond BJs. When was the last time for you? Seriously your overly obsessed. You could learn something from him and his friends if only you would not insist on being so narrow minded.

[Ernest Brown]

Billy,

"The audacity of some peoples' ignorance is often very remarkable."

No doubt.

Especially since Christ is the Master of Christians in Christian belief and practice going back some 2 millenia.

[Jeffrey Quick]

Jen, I know Jesus, and Billy ain't Him...which suits Billy just fine. You aren't Jesus either (you are the one who first brought that name up, remember?), but I'm not sure that suits you.

Cin: thanks for the "back on topic" push, but there's really nobody left on this thread who is willing and able to argue that NORML had any business arguing against the Feds raping medical marijuana dispensaries on the grounds that they were the State of California's catemites.

[Billy Beck]

"But Billy won't answer my honest question about human nature,..."

Reprise:

"Is it possible that there is more that one human nature?"

No. It's not possible. This is elementary and all the attention that the question requires.

[Timothy]

True, Argon is one of the heavier noble gasses. And it's not even as cool as Xenon! You can make Xenon bond with stuff (especially with halogens) under the right conditions, it's not nearly as pretentious as the other group VIIIA elements!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"He was afraid of mastication when he threatened to knock your teeth out. "

FALSE.

FEAR OF MASTICATION SHALL BE OVERCOME BY MASTURBATION.

AND WE WILL STOP THROWING HORSESHIT AGAINST THE WALL WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT "A LOT" IS TWO WORDS. NEENER NEENER.

*chomps sammich*

[Timothy]

GODDAMMIT THE URKOBOLD STOLE MY SAMMICH!

[Ernest Brown]

"The idea here, to craft a successful insult, is to include lightweight connotations."

The allusion was to argon's inability to interact with an Earth-normal environment, It was beyond your and Timothy's ability to comprehend, as usual.

[smacky]

On the count of three, I want everyone to shut the fuck up.

One...

[Cin]

Jeffrey:
Cin: thanks for the "back on topic" push, but there's really nobody left on this thread who is willing and able to argue that NORML had any business arguing against the Feds raping medical marijuana dispensaries on the grounds that they were the State of California's catemites.

Then why doesn't someone on the thread ask Billy to do this. He's more than capable and he started to in the beginning and has tried to make everyone think since but, wow!!!!...over everyone's heads.

[Timothy]

SAMMICH!

[Timothy]

And it's not even as cool as Xenon! You can make Xenon bond with stuff (especially with halogens) under the right conditions, it's not nearly as pretentious as the other group VIIIA elements!

Here I demonstrate my ignorance of basic chemistry.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT WILLING AND ABLE TO TAKE COMMAND WITH YOUR MAIL ORDER NINJA COSTUME, THAT SAUSAGE LINK, AND THE THREE POUNDS OF SOILED GAUZE PADS.

WE WILL NOT RELINQUISH OUR CUPCAKES, OUR CHEETOS, AND THE RIGHT TO BATE IN GRANDMA'S BASEMENT IN BETWEEN HER GETTING THE LAUNDRY.

DAMMIT GRANDMA. YOU SAID YOU'D KNOCK.

SEE - VIOLENCE IN THE SYSTEM. VIOLENCE IN THE SYSTEM. IT WILL BE SEAT COVER ANARCHY!!!!

SAVE THE ENDANGERED NAWGA!!!!

[Cin]

AND WE WILL STOP THROWING HORSESHIT AGAINST THE WALL WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT "A LOT" IS TWO WORDS. NEENER NEENER.

Fucking shoot me you ass wipe! You can't compare to my typing skills on your best day and my worst.

[Jeffrey Quick]

Cin:
Because the last I saw, list consensus was exactly that...there was nothing left to argue. Nobody here is supporting NORML in this matter, and Billy certainly wouldn't.

[JasonL]

This is the strangest-ass thread in the history of H&R.

Someday, when I grow up to be a big troll, I hope to have slavish follower trolls of my own.

There, I posted something just to be part of it.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

HA! TRICK QUESTION!!

THERE ARE NO GOOD DAYS, THERE ARE NO BAD DAYS, EVER SINCE SOMEONE LEFT THE CAKE OUT IN THE RAIN.

SINCE YOU'RE NOT WILLING AND ABLE TO COMPREHEND THAT SIMPLE FACT, YOU WILL NOT BE INVITED TO THE FESTIVUS PARTY IN MACARTHUR PARK.

**************

TIME TO LISTEN TO ACE OF BASE.

[dhex]

will this thread make 1000 posts?

Cin: thanks for the "back on topic" push, but there's really nobody left on this thread who is willing and able to argue that NORML had any business arguing against the Feds raping medical marijuana dispensaries on the grounds that they were the State of California's catemites.

when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. or you shoot up the kitchen, and set the fucking place on fire. (glassware, like the state, is heat resistant only to a certain point) alternately, you plug in ye olde keyboard and yell at a minority of a minority until you mistake their jibes and lack of engagement for "winning."

purity for the puritans. sodom for the sodomites.

we are all sodomites now.

[Timothy]

GIVE ME BACK MY SAMMICH! A KOBOLD IS 1/2 A CR AND I HAVE MORE HD THAN BILLY!

[Richard Nikoley]

"But Billy won't answer my honest question about human nature, so why would we assume he will answer any "honest questions"?"

Would you be referring to this? "WHERE DOES THE "URGE TO RULE" COME FROM if it is not at least a part of human nature?"

Well, I don't have time to research why Billy didn't answer it, or let on why not, and I can't recall the context of the mud slinging going on at that time.

My general answer to the question would be implied here:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123957.html#854855

Shorter version: laziness and dishonesty. Even shorter version: because they can.

There's a lot more to that shorter version than may meet the eye. It's why so many people, for example, will outright use the civil legal system to steal and gain the unearned -- and they pretend moral justification. That's because they operate on the basis of social sanction (the law) and substitute it for natural morality based in human nature.

Another way to address your question is that free will is part of human nature, so it fools you into thinking that all manner of evil that people freely choose to do, on whatever rationalization they choose "is only natural."

You're reversing cause & effect.

[GinSlinger]

Billy, Billy, Billy,

You act as though that was the only question. Here, I'll parse it out for you as clearly you have some reading comprehension problems.

GinSlinger | December 17, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Billy,
It is a crucial error to equate the urge to rule with "human nature".

How so? Are those with the "urge to rule" not human?

Or, are you suggestting that the urge is not natural? If not natural, where does it come from? Why did it arise? Is it possible that there is more that one human nature? And if so, how many? Before government we were all hunky dory eating out acrons from the ground of the oak tree that is our shelter?

GinSlinger | December 17, 2007, 4:35pm | #
See, now your right back to the asinine and cynical nonsense.

No, I don't see, and you don't seem to be capable of illustrating, so I guess we're at an impass.

If "the urge to rule" is not natural, it was learned. If that was learned, other cultural phenomenon can be learned as well.

Yes. In the most fundamental terms, that's exactly right. The person whose name is currently being trampled around here by someone without the sheer spine to use her or her own once pointed out that "Man is the only entity that can sink below his own nature," and what we're discussing is the premier example of that in a political context.

I'm afraid, Billy boy, that it is you that seem to have the problem with reading comprehension. That quote does not suggest that they are not human, only that they are exisiting in an unnatural state. Better luck next time.

WHERE DOES THE "URGE TO RULE" COME FROM if it is not at least a part of human nature?

Once again, slowly: What. Is. Human. Nature?
Where. Does. It. Come. From?
Is. It. Inherited. Or. Learned?
If. Learned. Why. Can. There. Be. Only. One?

Awaiting your answer.

[GinSlinger]

Nikoley,

People desire to rule over others because they are lazy? Is laziness a part of human nature?

And, think carefully before you answer that.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

CIN LIKES GOING TO TECHNO PARTIES WHILE WEARING MISMATCHING PATTERNS OF EYE PLEASING PASTEL COLORS. (IT ENHANCES OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR TYPING SKILLS A LOT)

*SHOWS TIMOTHY SAMMICH AND TAKES BIG BITE OF SAME*

P.S., CIN IS ALSO A LA CLIPPERS FAN.

[Ernest Brown]

Timmy,

"Here I demonstrate my ignorance of basic chemistry."

Nah, just your ignorance of basic English and reasoning. No "sammich" for you, smarmkins.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

MR. INSINCERE PURPLE,
"Nah, just your ignorance of basic English and reasoning"

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW IF TIMOTHY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND BASIC ENGLISH? HE SANG "DA DOO RUN RUN" MORE LOUDLY THAN THE REST OF US. RUSSEL Z WAS THE BESTEST TEACHER EVAR!

HE WAS ALSO SITTING NEXT TO SIDNEY, JAGDISH, AND CLAYTON AT THE OMEGA HOUSE RUSH EVENT.

[Billy Beck]

"That quote does not suggest that they are not human, only that they are exisiting in an unnatural state."

What's the difference?

[Cin]

Minion of URKOBOLD | December 18, 2007, 2:18pm | #

CIN LIKES GOING TO TECHNO PARTIES WHILE WEARING MISMATCHING PATTERNS OF EYE PLEASING PASTEL COLORS. (IT ENHANCES OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR TYPING SKILLS A LOT)

*SHOWS TIMOTHY SAMMICH AND TAKES BIG BITE OF SAME*

P.S., CIN IS ALSO A LA CLIPPERS FAN.

Woo Hoo! Guess you told me! Now I think I'll just don some Pastel Clothing of mismatched patterns. Tell me Fuck Nuts, why are you in this thread? Oh and turn off the cap locks it's annoying that you can't seem to type without them on.

[dhex]

i heard the term "natural morality" and i think of a large stick with bits of skull and brains stuck to it.

[Ayn_Randian]

GinSlinger is winning this thread and I don't think he really even has a dog in this fight.

[Ernest Brown]

"What's the difference?"

Well, according to the evidence here, none at all, especially since these drooling rejects from "I AM LEGEND" seem to be determined Hobbsians. (see above)

[GinSlinger]

What's the difference?

Because here you said that those with an urge to rule were not human, not that they were somehow acting against human nature.

Better luck next time debate club drop out.

[Timothy]

Ernest: Does this mean we cannot seat buddies anymore? How will spy on your older sister in the shower now?

[Billy Beck]

Only in this place does that come off as a stellar observation, Ernest. (You know this, of course.)

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

BECAUSE MY NUTS ARE FUCKED. ACTUALLY, I ONLY HAVE HALF OF ONE NUT, BECAUSE I BIT THE OTHER 1.5 OFF WHEN TRYING A TANTRIC TAINT BITING MOVE.

I CANNOT TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK, AS MY LEFT HAND IS STUCK IN THE PICKLE JAR.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY A MERKIN? THAT IS WHY I'M ON THIS THREAD. I'M A THREAD-TO-THREAD MERKIN SALESMAN.

[Ron Good]

Jennifer: Billy never said anything like "anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something". He didn't say anything even close.

Or, if you contend he did, show us where.

[Richard Nikoley]

"People desire to rule over others because they are lazy?"

Fundamentally, yes. And even though they often work very, very hard at it. Do you understand what is required for man qua human being to do to overcome the physical/mental tendency to laziness?

"Is laziness a part of human nature?"

No. It's part of the nature of homo sapiens. Do you understand the distinction? Can you tell me when you think humanity arose and what distinguished it from the biological organisms that preceded it?

[Billy Beck]

"...you said that those with an urge to rule were not human, not that they were somehow acting against human nature."

That's right, and your "because" doesn't even approach an answer (far less "winning the thread") to the question: what's the difference?

[Timothy]

I am wondering if Ernest is going to camp or prison this year. Who will watch the reruns on TBS to find out?

YOU ARE A BIG MEANIE URKOBOLD! I HATE YOU, DAD!

Cin: The Urkobold is here for reasons both universal and mysterious.

[smacky]

I CANNOT TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK, AS MY LEFT HAND IS STUCK IN THE PICKLE JAR.

Is that what they're calling it now? Finished with the cheetos already?

[Richard Nikoley]

"i heard the term "natural morality" and i think of a large stick with bits of skull and brains stuck to it."

So? You have a problem. What are you going to do to solve it?

[Billy Beck]

"Fundamentally, yes."

I disagree, Rich. I don't think the thing can be put that simply. There are people -- and always have been -- who simply enjoy disposing of others' lives.

[GinSlinger]

Billy never said anything like "anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something". He didn't say anything even close.

Or, if you contend he did, show us where.
Here

[Ernest Brown]

"I am wondering if Ernest is going to camp or prison this year."

Neither, I am going on that wonderful walk known as life. You could have, too, if you hadn't already gnawed off your own feet.

[Timothy]

GinSlinger: If the Urkobold awards you a sammich, may I have it? You only eat at night and it was MY SAMMICH!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

WHERE ARE MY CUPCAKES???

I NEED A LOT OF CUPCAKES.

*MAKES UP FOR CIN'S ARBITRARY PROBLEMS WITH THE SPACE BAR. MAYBE ALITTLE LIKE THE LONEWACKJOB?*

A LOT OF CUPCAKES.

PASS A HANDIWIPE. I AM OVERCOME WITH HOW INTERNET TUFF BILLY IS. PRETTY PLEASE SHOW ME HOW TUFF YOU ARE??? WELL, DEMONSTRATE ON... UM... SOMEONE ELSE.

[Billy Beck]

You're an idiot, son. Your linked "here" is a comparison of logic.

[GinSlinger]

"Is laziness a part of human nature?"

No. It's part of the nature of homo sapiens. Do you understand the distinction? Can you tell me when you think humanity arose and what distinguished it from the biological organisms that preceded it?

And

"...you said that those with an urge to rule were not human, not that they were somehow acting against human nature."

That's right, and your "because" doesn't even approach an answer (far less "winning the thread") to the question: what's the difference?

Ahhh, I get it now (thanks Billy!). What we're dealing with are Nietzschean Anarchists with a Will to Power.

So, is Billy the only Ubermench?

[GinSlinger]

Help yourself to my sandwich, it's made with mayo.

[Timothy]

The Walk of Life, a wonderful song by Dire Straights, fails to mention an Ernest. You know what I mean, Vern?

[Timothy]

GOD DAMN YOU GINSLINGER YOU ARE WORKING FOR HIM! Your feet are NEXT!

[Jeffrey Quick]

I'm not answering this for Billy. In fact, my answer will probably drive Billy batshit crazy. People seek unearned values (of which ruling others is the chief and worst example) because of Original Sin, and the original sin was taking an unearned value. I.e., God told Adam and Eve they could have anything in the garden (Why did He do that? because it was His) except for one tree, which he forbade (because it was His). So what did they do...they took a fruit that was not theirs, and not the snake's to offer.

Now, Billy and I both agree that Mankind has a core of decency and can be improved. I don't think that reason alone will do it. But that's ultimately irrelevant to facts on the ground, which are this: if mankind is screwed up enough to need government, then they are too screwed up to have government entrusted to them. Which means the least objectionable form of "government" is autarchy, as most people can govern themselves at least part of the time.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"if you hadn't already gnawed off your own feet."

SILLY SILLY, MR. PURPLE.

HE GNAWED OFF HIS OWN TAINT. HIS FEET ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE. HE WIGGLES HIS TOES TO STIMULATE HIS PROSTATE.

CLEARLY YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC ANATOMY SHOWS THAT YOU PROBABLY LACK ALL KNOWLEDGE HIER, TOO.

[dhex]

So? You have a problem. What are you going to do to solve it?

is the answer "beat you with a stick?"

of course not.

the answer is love those you can, avoid those you must, and try most of all to not have to cover your stick with brains and skull.

to pretend that murder isn't natural is like pretending rape isn't natural, or childbirth isn't natural, or that hemlock isn't natural. "nature" has little to do with it. (which i believe someone was alluding to above with the distinction between "homo sapiens" and "humanity," though i don't think their distinction is particularly meaningful for a number of reasons.)

[Timothy]

Fucking nihilists.

Say what you will about the tentets of national socialism dude, at least it's an ethos.

[Ernest Brown]

"Ahhh, I get it now (thanks Billy!). What we're dealing with are Nietzschean Anarchists with a Will to Power.

So, is Billy the only Ubermench?"

Wow, Ginflinger exhibits complete and utter incomprehension coupled with willful stupidity and incoherence. That's a trifecta!

[smacky]

I'm withholding cupcakes until everyone here shuts the fuck up. Then we can commence to cupcakes at our late afternoon tea party. Bring your favorite stuffed animal. Or not.

*passes a handiwipe to Minion of the Urkobold*

...two...

[Donny]

I am the walrus?

I am the walrus?

[Billy Beck]

"What we're dealing with are Nietzschean Anarchists with a Will to Power."

If you weren't so stridently ignorant and stupid, I would say that's just a vicious lie.

[Timothy]

Are the cupcakes frosted? What flavor are they? I DEMAND ANSWERS!

[dhex]

smackadoodles, don't count us out yet...

thimothy (to borrow the anarchistic rebellion against names; i would also go with simony or timbaland) the real question is whether your ethos is pure like a mountain spring or sullied with beastly excess.

[Jennifer]

"What we're dealing with are Nietzschean Anarchists with a Will to Power."

No, a wilting power. Close yet oh-so-far.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I disagree, Rich. I don't think the thing can be put that simply. There are people -- and always have been -- who simply enjoy disposing of others' lives."

The key to what I'm getting at is contained in the answer to the question following the statement:

"Do you understand what is required for man qua human being to do to overcome the physical/mental tendency to laziness?"

Now perhaps I'm using the term "laziness" unconventionally, but what I mean by it, most simply is: resistance to being fully human.

As we understand, the hallmark of being human is that we must choose and produce the values necessary for survival, happiness, prosperity. To produce in the context of society implies competition for all sorts of things (I know you know all this) and the only way to square a set of honest consistent principles in that regard is that whole realms of the values produced must be tradeable.

And competitively producing tradeable values -- really, the hallmark and highest virtue of humanity -- is generally more difficult to do than working very, very hard to rule and plunder, for reasons that should be obvious.

Sure, some people are simply sociopaths who enjoy it. But they're lazy too, because by lazy I mean that they resist the greater effort in being human.

[dhex]

i've always wanted to write a nietzchean dessert cookbook called "The Will To Flour: Only The UberYeast Will Rise!"

[Timothy]

"What we're dealing with are Nietzschean Anarchists with a Will to Power."

If you weren't so stridently ignorant and stupid, I would say that's just a vicious lie.

THEREFORE, Ladies and others, the claim must be true! Thusly by his strident ignorance GinSlinger is victorious!

[Eric the .5b]

Since Billy now needs Ernest and Jeffrey to make his arguments for him,

No, he doesn't.

I think that's strictly true, judging by the amazing synchronization of arguments and the striking similarity of writing styles (including weird usages of words like "punk" to describe critics) between Billy and most of his supposed acolytes. (Cin repeatedly makes typos that Billy avoids and uses a rather distinct writing style. Could be faked, but you'd think the other acolytes would be more distinct if he were willing to go to that trouble.) Normally, you can't get three libertarians together without an argument breaking out, unless there's an external target. These "guys"? Not a note of plausible-looking dissent or discord among "them", and they smoothly respond to remarks directed to other individuals, who then indicate simple agreement.

I'm not answering this for Billy. In fact, my answer will probably drive Billy batshit crazy.

Sure it will.

[GinSlinger]

Try this on for size Ernie: homo sapien sapien != human. That Billy and his ilk have "discovered" the way to become human, thus separating themselves from the "masses" who deserve to die by having their brains beat out with a stick. Yeah, that pretty much cums up a high-school reading of Nietzsche.

[HI FROOKTOSE KORN SYRUP BOI]

oh hay, hai, gaiz. am i, oh hay. am i missing something?

just hangin' out, bein' cool? oh. i can be cool, too. can i hang out with you?

Did you know that the coca cola company is polluting your precious bodily fluids, and you can go off when bumped gently?

seriously. it knocked out my teeth. it was billy flavored.

[Billy Beck]

Jeffrey: "I'm not answering this for Billy. In fact, my answer will probably drive Billy batshit crazy. People seek unearned values (of which ruling others is the chief and worst example) because of Original Sin,..."

Here's what that doctrine has never explained, mate:

Me.

[dhex]

i too like gurdjieff.

and the only way to square a set of honest consistent principles in that regard is that whole realms of the values produced must be tradeable.

if you mean what i think you mean - i.e. the only way to proof one's pudding is trading it for jam, as it were - that's a neat way of phrasing it.

[Timothy]

dhex: My ethos is covered in delicous sprinkles!

[Billy Beck]

"Sure, some people are simply sociopaths who enjoy it. But they're lazy too, because by lazy I mean that they resist the greater effort in being human."

Very well. I'll stipulate.

[Ernest Brown]

"Try this on for size Ernie: homo sapien sapien != human. That Billy and his ilk have "discovered" the way to become human, thus separating themselves from the "masses" who deserve to die by having their brains beat out with a stick. Yeah, that pretty much cums up a high-school reading of Nietzsche."

Even setting aside the fact that Billy's argument is exactly the opposite, you haven't even come up to a grade-school reading of Nietzsche.

[Nietzche]

GOD IS DEAD WE'VE KILLED HIM, WE'VE KILLED HIM

*WAVES LANTERN*

[Eric the .5b]

...And for that matter, there's been actual disagreement among the libertarian regulars here (vis a vis the "America" thing GinSlinger and I briefly argued other) when faced by what purports to be a "team" of angry anarchists uniformly afflicted with borderline Asperger's.

These "guys"? "Jeffry" sets Billy up to swing his dick. Yeah.

[GinSlinger]

Agriculture over hunting and gathering.
Sails over oars.
Water power over animal power.
Steam power over human power.
Electricity over steam.
Mechanization over effort.

Guess what boys, all of human history is predicated on the fact that we are all lazy.

[Timothy]

Don't forget, for Billy, RealDoll over human female!

[smacky]

My cupcakes are made with UberYeast. And they are not billy flavored.

[dhex]

Here's what that doctrine has never explained, mate:

Me.

oh you're a special snowflake to be sure.

(of course, that everyone thinks this is merely a symptom of human frailty - even suicides think they are special enough to die at that moment.)

[GinSlinger]

Even setting aside the fact that Billy's argument is exactly the opposite . . . .

Oh, it is? I wasn't aware that Billy had made an argument. Point to it for me.

BTW, "bullshit" is not an argument.

[Stevo Darkly]

Alo?

Salut?

Sunt eu, un haiduc.

[Ernest Brown]

If you weren't so stridently ignorant and stupid, I would say that's just a vicious lie."

They do seem to be a pathetic and lack-witted lot, eh? Poor Eric thinks that we are all the same person, just because we can all come to the rational conclusion that they're sub-idiotic.

Well, I admit it. I am Billicus the Thrashian!

...not

I don't believe even the leftist dregs in Usenet were ever this feeble, and I'll throw in Erb in the bargain.

[Jennifer]

Don't forget, for Billy, RealDoll over human female!

And you can get the teeth custom-made so that your dick looks Really Really Big by comparison. Far too big to double as dental floss, that's for certain.

[Stevo Darkly]

Ma-ia-hii!
Ma-ia-huu!
Ma-ia-hoo!
Ma-ia-haa-haa!

Ma-ia-hii!
Ma-ia-huu!
Ma-ia-hoo!
Ma-ia-haa-haa!

[Jeffrey Quick]

Nietzsche? As Jennifer said, projection isn't just for movie theaters.
"Nietzsche, however, challenges Schopenhauer's account and suggests that people and animals really want power; living in itself appears only as a subsidiary aim - something necessary to promote one's power." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

[Richard Nikoley]

"the answer is love those you can, avoid those you must, and try most of all to not have to cover your stick with brains and skull."

Whatever works for you, man, so long as it's human.

to pretend that murder isn't natural is like pretending rape isn't natural, or childbirth isn't natural..."

Oops. Big conflation there. Do you see it? You're setting the metaphysical and the man made on equal terms.

Let's see if you can unwrap it and get to your own correct answer. It's always so much better that way.

[Billy Beck]

"Guess what boys, all of human history is predicated on the fact that we are all lazy."

That's right in a very important way (like: the one you're illuminating with your examples), but that's not all there is to it by a long shot. Some people play the fact very differently. See Willie Sutton on why he robbed banks.

[Ernest Brown]

"Let's see if you can unwrap it and get to your own correct answer. It's always so much better that way."

Except for poor Eric, the voices in his head keep getting in the way, and that damned demon-possessed family dog, well!

The poor boy needs lithium in a big way.

[Stevo Darkly]

Vrei sa pleci dar nu ma, nu ma iei!
Nu ma, nu ma iei! Nu ma, nu ma, nu ma iei!

[Billy Beck]

"I don't believe even the leftist dregs in Usenet were ever this feeble, and I'll throw in Erb in the bargain."

Oh, I know they were. What's appalling is to see this sort of bloody crap under the name of "Reason".

I rather wish McPhillips would bring us some of his patent "Impressions", to include the site itself. It deserves it now.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Well, I admit it. I am Billicus the Thrashian!

GODDAMNIT, GUNNELS. THAT'S YET ANOTHER NICK OF YOURS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER?

HOW ABOUT REGALING US WITH TALES OF THE THRASHINEKIAN WARS AGAINST MYNONOS OF TAINTOLONAINI?

[Ron Good]

Ginslinger: you wanna please explain how:

Cesar: yes.

It's the same as the difference between arguing against the Holocaust as it happened because murder is immoral, and arguing against it because H-bombs would be better than Zyklon-B at wiping out the Jews.

There is no serious room in any of this for utilitarianism. That's a big part of how we got to these straits to begin with.

equals or even approximates:

anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something

???

[Timothy]

DRINK!

See Willie Sutton on why he robbed banks.

Because they conspire with the conglomerate of international currency traders and the illuminati to debase our currency and rob us of wealth by forcing intrinsically valueless currency upon the world?

[Eric the .5b]

Gee, I never thought of that, Minion.

To be fair, though, while the broad style and fixation on Jennifer are quite similar, He Of Many Names has far better writing skills.

[dhex]

Whatever works for you, man, so long as it's human.

Oops. Big conflation there. You're setting the metaphysical and the man made on equal terms.

which is the problem with using "nature" as a benchmark for fuckall. it's sort of like the term "spiritual" - pretty, but meaningless, and oddly fraught with sorrows.

seeing as metaphysics are man-made, i fail to see the issue.

Let's see if you can unwrap it and get to your own correct answer. It's always so much better that way.

see above.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Guess what boys, all of human history is predicated on the fact that we are all lazy."

Somewhat close. Metaphysically, we are all lazy, just like dogs. That's the meta-natural for homo sapiens. Humanity is about overcoming it, not indulging it.

Relaxation, amusement, fun, leisure, safety, well being, love, comfort and other such values are man made, distinguished from natural "laziness" in very important contextual ways, primarily having to do with the requirement that we must volitionally choose the values necessary to our survival.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

NO, SILLY, TIMOTHY.

WILLIE SUTTON WAS MERELY THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE EDGEWORTH BOX.

YOU SILLY SOLOW MODEL LEG BEFORE WICKET HETEROSKEDASTIC REAL BUSINESS CYCLE THEORY PERSON.

I SUGGEST YOU READ ROMER'S "ADVANCED MACROECONOMICS" BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS THE NIHILISTS ANY FURTHER.

1/2 A BEE - GOOD POINT.

[Elliot]

GinSlinger: Guess what boys, all of human history is predicated on the fact that we are all lazy.

Richard's "laziness" was not about the intelligent choice to more efficiently produce values by honest effort.

[GinSlinger]

So, Ricky, you're saying that the urge to rule is just fine so long as it's for amusement purposes, and not "natural 'laziness'"? Interesting. And what if, for some reason, I must choose to rule you as a value "necessary to [my] survival"?

Ronny, check out what Billy Bud was responding to. He is saying that the good must be the enemy of the perfect--he's the one that greased the slope.

[dhex]

oh the wrath of unclosed tags...

Whatever works for you, man, so long as it's human.

shrug. rape and murder are also human activities - to pretend otherwise is to go join the blank slaters, and fie on that gang of well-intentioned schizoids. i prefer to think of them as aggressively negative activities, and their humanity, or lack thereof, is an unimportant distinction.

[Ayn_Randian]

Maybe I missed it, but isn't there a question pending about the origins of human nature and what that concept means other than "whatever I say it is"?

[GinSlinger]

Elli[n]ot: Well, perhaps he should define his terms better. One can make the argument that the rulers of any state are "making an intelligent choice to more efficiently produce values [sic] by honest effort." After all, it does take "honest effort" to compel people to act in your best interests. Now, define honest without resorting to human nature or natural rights, since they have yet to be defined despite repeated requests.

[GinSlinger]

Cpt.(?) Ayn Randian, no you haven't missed anything. For objectivists, they suer are subjective, aren't they?

[Ron Good]

Jennifer: I see you're still around. You want to show where Billy said something/anything like "anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something"?

After all, you're the one who explicitly said he did so, and has proceeded throughout this thread as if that were a fact.

[Richard Nikoley]

"seeing as metaphysics are man-made"

Uh oh. Now you're confusing concept and referent. Look, I really don't care to get into name calling, but at the same time we are getting into areas that require some prerequisite knowledge and understanding.

It's fine if you don't have it, but let's at least not try to pretend you do.

[Billy Beck]

Elliot: very good eye, and excellent, concise, flag on the play.

[GinSlinger]

Oh, and misogyny? Yeah, you guess are batting 1.000 for team Nietzsche.

[Billy Beck]

"Maybe I missed it, but isn't there a question pending about the origins of human nature and what that concept means other than 'whatever I say it is'?

No. You got one? And if you can't do any better than the flagrant bullshit of your final sentence, then don't bother.

[Elliot]

Eric: ...fixation on Jennifer...

Shouldn't that be fixation by Jennifer? You'd think being ignored or ridiculed for a few hundred posts might have clued her in that she ought to quit discussing dicks and teeth.

[GinSlinger]

Are you naturally or willfully blind Billy Bud? The question has been hanging there for days. You refuse to answer it because you cannot.

[dhex]

Uh oh. Now you're confusing concept and referent.

naw dogg, i just think - at least in this case - it's a false distinction.

bridges aren't made out of poetry. which is ok, too. that's life.

[Richard Nikoley]

"So, Ricky, you're saying that the urge to rule is just fine so long as it's for amusement purposes, and not "natural 'laziness'"?"

Well, I of course didn't "say" that else you'd have quoted it, right? And without knowing how you arrived at that [incorrect] "paraphrase" I really have no idea of how to deal with it.

But I'll be happy to elaborate if you meet me half way.

[Elliot]

Ginslinger: Well, perhaps he should define his terms better...

Did you actually read what the man wrote?

I didn't think so.

[Timothy]

Are values like thetans? Can I audit some engrams to take care of them?

[Stevo Darkly]

NU MA, NU MA, NU MA IEI!!!

[GinSlinger]

Because, Ricky, you are saying that there is a "good" laziness and a "bad" laziness. And that you are the arbitrator for which is which. You're just uncomfortable that someone would point that out to you.

Is that halfway enough for you?

[Billy Beck]

"Are you naturally or willfully blind Billy Bud? The question has been hanging there for days. You refuse to answer it because you cannot."

Pay attention to Nikoley's remark on you, kid. You don't have a question in the whole thread worth addressing because you don't know what you're talking about. When you can actually deal with what's going on here, we'll have a go. Ask around: there are people here who never knew me before this who are beginning to get the picture.

[dhex]

Are values like thetans? Can I audit some engrams to take care of them?

the odd thing about hubbard - and there were oh so very fucking many odd things about hubbard - is that he takes a kind of crowleyan ideal of the soul and turns into into an episode of some horrid sci fi channel space opera.

the hilariously charlatantastic thing being, of course, that he then printed fucking money for decades afterwards.

[Elliot]

dhex: ...it's a false distinction.

Mark Twain gave some good advice about remaining silent.

[Billy Beck]

"Because, Ricky, you are saying that there is a "good" laziness and a 'bad' laziness. And that you are the arbitrator for which is which."

Your second sentence is in no way true.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Timothy]

I bet fucking money is SO MUCH COOLER than regular money. I bet it smokes behind the bleachers and gets blown by Libby the Head Cheerleader every day!

[Kyle Bennett]

GunSlinger,

shorter Billy: you have no serious business attending this forum.

[GinSlinger]

Elli, of course I read what he wrote. Did you? It was only later that the concept of "good" and "bad" laziness has come up. Once again, shifting goalposts--you guys are really, really good at being really, really bad.

Still have yet to see an argument from Billy Bud.

[Richard Nikoley]

"naw dogg, i just think - at least in this case - it's a false distinction.

bridges aren't made out of poetry."

Gotcha. Spaceships (man made), and the celestial bodies they visit and orbit (metaphysical): false distinction.

[Ernest Brown]

"Oh, I know they were."

You may be right. I forgot that they couldn't pull Eric's little stupidity there because of the address headers.

[Timothy]

You guys are like gnostics withouth the gnosis!

[GinSlinger]

Shorter Billy: I don't have an answer for your question regarding my earlier statements that those with an urge to rule are not human, therefore *sticks fingers in ears* nahnahnah

[Eric the .5b]

Shouldn't that be fixation by Jennifer?

Sequence of events:

? A guy suggests shoving his dick down the throat of someone he's angry at.
? That person mocks him by equating that mighty-phallus-o-rage with floss.
? A "swarm" of "people" show up who share the guy's conviction that he's been threatened with sexual assault.
? The "original guy" and the "swarm" all alternate between attacking the mocker and trying to deny the mocker pisses "them" off and all this foolishness is detracting from spreading the Secret Message to the Secret Recipients.

(...Secret Message to the Secret Recipients...)

(No, that's definitely just coincidence.)

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian:
> >If the shooting starts, who will you support?
>
> Well, let's see...you've called a fascist, a second-hander,

I called you a second-hander because you don't have a single original idea in your head. You've *intuited* nothing on your own. You're capable of parroting, but not thinking. You have no innate intelligence or sense of style.

Exhibit A: your handle.

wished death upon me...

Get your "We the People" boot off my neck, and that may change.

You haven't bothered to visit the Ambiguous-Collective fallacy link, have you? You don't care to waltz around in public unthinking? And you're not going to check it now just because I'm being a pest; and it's much better to simply blank-out?

Exhibit B.

I wonder why on earth I would have no compunction in joining a side.

I am pretty confidence you would join your government's side in a heartbeat.

You're a FAKE -- you don't really believe in liberty at all.

[Timothy]

I'm desiging some secret designs RIGHT NOW!

[Billy Beck]

"Still have yet to see an argument from Billy Bud."

It is abundantly proven that you wouldn't know it if you did.

[Timothy]

Is it reductively or inductively proven?

[Billy Beck]

"I forgot that they couldn't pull Eric's little stupidity there because of the address headers."

Yeah, that occurred to me, too. If you remember, though, a couple of them tried it.

This one here, though, is almost a case-study already.

[Eric the .5b]

Is it reductively or inductively proven?

It's intuited, man. Secret arguments don't need no square "logic".

[GinSlinger]

Here's a model for you Billiam:

[A]n argument is a set of declarative sentences (statements) known as the premises, and another declarative sentence (statement) known as the conclusion in which it is asserted that the truth of the conclusion follows from (is entailed by) the premisses. Such an argument may or may not be valid.

[lunchstealer]

Shut up Donny. You're out of your element.

[Timothy]

Say it with me now everybody: for every delta>0 there exists an epsilon such that

P(douchefuck|Billy)=1

[Stevo Darkly]

Ma-ia-hii!
Ma-ia-huu!
Ma-ia-hoo!
Ma-ia-haa-haa!

Ma-ia-hii!
Ma-ia-huu!
Ma-ia-hoo!
Ma-ia-haa-haa!

[dhex]

Ask around: there are people here who never knew me before this who are beginning to get the picture.

dude ask my friends i'm totally cool i swear.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Because, Ricky, you are saying that there is a "good" laziness and a "bad" laziness."

I've said no such thing, but let me see if I can help anyway. I'm not placing a moral judgment on "laziness" as it exists naturally, no more than I would place a moral judgment on my lazy dogs for being lazy dogs, or a human being for being sleepy when he feels sleepy.

Laziness qua urge is wholly natural.

Now, try to take the jump: the capacity to humanity is natural, i.e., is available to everyone. You could think of it as the very first value you decide to choose and pursue as an assertion of your free will in a human context. From that point, the whole point, is to in whatever extent you can to overcome your natural limitations in favor of choosing and pursuing human values, i.e., the man chosen, man produced, man celebrated.

[lunchstealer]

Here's a model for you Billiam:

[A]n argument is a set of declarative sentences (statements) known as the premises, and another declarative sentence (statement) known as the conclusion in which it is asserted that the truth of the conclusion follows from (is entailed by) the premisses. Such an argument may or may not be valid.

This isn't an argument. It's contradiction!

[Timothy]

I see you've played argumenty/contradicty before!

[Eric the .5b]

*Oh, what the Hell*

Te sun, sa-ti spun, ce simt acum,
Alo, iubirea mea, sunt eu, fericirea.
Alo, alo, sunt iarasi eu, Picasso.

[Eric the .5b]

This isn't an argument. It's contradiction!

It sure ain't abuse.

[dhex]

Spaceships (man made), and the celestial bodies they visit and orbit (metaphysical): false distinction.

celestial bodies they visit are physical, not metaphysical.

*unless* you're going to get all occult ontology on me in which case i can only say neti neti (and get off my lawn!).

Mark Twain gave some good advice about remaining silent.

he also wrote a story about a frog.

this and two dollars will get you a ride on the bus.

[GinSlinger]

Nikoley,

You're getting better at writing what's in your head, someday, you may even master communication.

How do you square: the capacity to humanity is natural, i.e., is available to everyone. You could think of it as the very first value you decide to choose and pursue as an assertion of your free will in a human context. From that point, the whole point, is to in whatever extent you can to overcome your natural limitations in favor of choosing and pursuing human values, i.e., the man chosen, man produced, man celebrated.

And Billy's contention that those with an urge for power are not "human"?

I mean, if they overcome their natural limitations to pursue their value of power, don't they fit your little model? By choosing, through free will, any value, and pursuing it, we are made human? Sweet.

[Billy Beck]

Rich: that is a pretty damned good layout of what Rand had in mind with her "sink below his nature" remark. Our job is to be human in all of that capacity, in the same way that a tiger's job is to be a tiger in all of its capacity. Reason is an essential element in that, and the differences between a person who does this and one who doesn't are nearly axiomatic when observed by anyone who can reason in the first place.

[Stevo Darkly]

NU MA, NU MA IEI!

[GinSlinger]

dhex, celestial bodies they visit are physical, not metaphysical.

My thoughts exactly, at first, but then I figured out it was a typo. Our friend meant to write megaphysical--as in really, really large physical bodies.

[lunchstealer]

It sure ain't abuse.

I honestly think the whole thing is a big exercise in self-abuse.

[dhex]

ginslinger, what you're missing here is that in their value system, "human" is a good - a moral value judgment - and not just a description of some state or another.

in that context it makes a lot of sense. again, i too enjoy gurdjieff.

[GinSlinger]

Not missing it dhex, waiting for them to clarify their terminology. Now we can get into the discussion of "morality."

[Eric the .5b]

I honestly think the whole thing is a big exercise in self-abuse.

Well, it doesn't really grow hair on the palms, so...

[Richard Nikoley]

"How do you square....

...And Billy's contention that those with an urge for power are not "human"?"

You might have made you question even better by including my, "Laziness qua urge is wholly natural."

Anyway, I'll let Billy answer for himself (and I do think you've uncovered a worthy question), but what I would say is that it's not the "urge" for power (to stipulate: dominate through coercion) that renders one inhuman (pay attention: that's a real concept), it's the acting on it.

[Richard Nikoley]

Gotta take a lunch break. Back later.

[Ayn_Randian]

I called you a second-hander because you don't have a single original idea in your head.

There's a statement you're claiming as fact that has no way of verification. Therefore, I shall just consider it an opinion, and I only value the opinions of those who have shown they have opinions worth valuing (hint: you're not one of these people). So, congratulations, you're wasting your time.

Get your "We the People" boot off my neck, and that may change

You're the one worrying about it, not me. You do it yourself. I'm trying to figure out how little ol' mean managed to marshal the full force of the government against you, thereby qualifying me for death.

I'm being a pest

At least you've admitted it.

I am pretty confidence you would join your government's side in a heartbeat.

Well, tough guy, why don't you start shooting and see how the cards fall?

on a serious note:

Reason is an essential element in [being human]

Why?

[GinSlinger]

it's the acting on it.

And now, after what, 500 posts, we're finally getting somewhere. Efficiency matters people.

[Billy Beck]

"ginslinger, what you're missing here is that in their value system, 'human' is a good - a moral value judgment - and not just a description of some state or another."

That moral judgment is contextual according to logical hierarchy: this takes place in the domain of ethics, and has nothing to do with the elementary (metaphysical) fact that humans exist in the first place.

Once that's understood, then...

"...what you're missing here is that in their value system, 'human' is a good..."

...no apology for the judgment is remotely necessary.

[Mike S.]

Jake Boone:
> Mike S: Nobody persuaded me, Jake.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it appears that you're claiming that the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, sprang, like Athena, fully-formed from your head. But I could be wrong.

Why does that seem impossible to you?

-- Ideas come from somewhere.

What I'm asking is how you went from State A (not an anarchist, and therefore insane and irrational) to State B (an anarchist, and therefore sane and rational).

As I grew up, matters once incomprehensible became quite obvious of their own accord. (A biologist might observe that neural interconnectivity had increased.) Similarly, you are able to reflexively perform mental tasks which would stymie a child.

Think about it: No one has ever "taught" you anything; they merely said or showed something to you at a certain time and place, and a lightbulb >clicked< on in a cartoon balloon over your head; and you thought to yourself, "That makes sense...."

Without the lightbulb, however, you're goin' nowhere.

[Tesla]

Without the lightbulb, however, you're goin' nowhere.

I KNEW THAT EDISON BASTARD WAS BEHIND THIS!

[Billy Beck]

Mike is making a crucial point.

"In the end, we are all our own teachers."

Or...

"You can lead a Hit & Run chimpanzee to concepts, but you'll never make him think."

[VikingMoose]

Think about it: No one has ever "taught" you anything; they merely said or showed something to you at a certain time and place, and a lightbulb >clicked< on in a cartoon balloon over your head; and you thought to yourself, "That makes sense...."

and thus my BATIN habit was born.

[GinSlinger]

Hold on kiddos, we're 'bout to get schooled on metaphysics, ethics and epistemology in a philosophy that considers the sun and moon to metaphysical.

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian | December 18, 2007, 3:56pm | #
Mike S> I called you a second-hander because you don't have a single original idea in your head. You've *intuited* nothing on your own. You're capable of parroting, but not thinking. You have no innate intelligence or sense of style. Exhibit A: your handle.

There's a statement you're claiming as fact that has no way of verification. Therefore, I shall just consider it an opinion, and I only value the opinions of those who have shown they have opinions worth valuing (hint: you're not one of these people). So, congratulations, you're wasting your time.

The prosecution submits into evidence "Exhibit C", ineptly provided to the case by the defense.

[Eric the .5b]

Moose, think about it: No one has ever "'bated"; they merely moved their fingers at a certain time and place, and a physical sensation happened.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THE PROSECUTION PULLED A MARCIA CLARK AND IS HEREBY PENALIZED THREE MOVES, MINUS 1D12, AND IS FORCED TO HAVE A SILLY HAIRSTYLE OF MR. STEVEN CRANE'S DESIGN.

YOU WERE ALSO INCORRECT WITH THE TERM "SECOND HANDER". THAT IS BECAUSE HE IS ADEPT AT BATIN WITH EITHER HAND, OR BOTH EVEN.

NOT AS GOOD AS THE CAT'S CRADLE, BUT BATIN TECHNIQUES ARE OBVIOUSLY BEYOND THE NARROW TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

*CHOMPS CUPCAKE DRAMATICALLY*

[dhex]

Think about it: No one has ever "taught" you anything; they merely said or showed something to you at a certain time and place, and a lightbulb >clicked< on in a cartoon balloon over your head; and you thought to yourself, "That makes sense...."

you never came to my football practices, huh?

[VM]

1/2 a Bee-

sigh.
*hangs antlers in shame*

no wait

EMPIRICAL TESTING!!!!! woo hoo!

*heads to Stevo's bunk*

[Mike S.]

dhex? Why aren't there any 350lbs "special-needs" Mongoloids in the NFL?

(Leaving aside jokes to the effect that there are.)

Figure it out.

[Eric the .5b]

EMPIRICAL TESTING!!!!! woo hoo!

*heads to Stevo's bunk*

Nooo!

You're supposed to intuit!

Or get into it.

Either way.

[Tesla]

Intuit? What does turbotax have to do with any of this?

[Billy Beck]

"Hold on kiddos, we're 'bout to get schooled on metaphysics, ethics and epistemology in a philosophy that considers the sun and moon to metaphysical."

What, exactly, are you going on about?

[Ayn_Randian]

The prosecution submits into evidence "Exhibit C", ineptly provided to the case by the defense.

Failing to explain yourself proves how much smarter you are then me, huh?

Oh man, you got me! Me saying that your opinion is just an opinion, and one I choose not to value, proves I'm a ....what is it you're trying to prove again?

[GinSlinger]

Spaceships (man made), and the celestial bodies they visit and orbit (metaphysical): false distinction.

From your boy Richy.

Are you denying that celestial bodies are metaphysical? Or that you have constructed an ethical, metaphysical or epistemological code?

[Eric the .5b]

OK, let's start tracking the tropes of the various Billy-avatars. One must understand the guy who really, really wants to be someone's enemy.

dhex? Why aren't there any 350lbs "special-needs" Mongoloids in the NFL?

#1: Awkward, ungrammatical, and ridiculously hyperbolic insults. This is a pretty key one.

[Mike S.]

Ayn_Randian quoted "...ineptly...," and then wrote: Failing to explain yourself proves how much smarter you are then me, huh?

Please don't let the saloon swing-doors hit your erudition on the way out.

[Richard Nikoley]

"celestial bodies they visit are physical, not metaphysical."

My apologies. Since you weren't grasping the distinction between the metaphysical and man mad, I figured I'd fudge and take a baby step. I had no reason to think that a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical wouldn't just be a bit too much.

OK, so: spaceships (man made) and existence (metaphysical): false distinction.

[Timothy]

Holy. Cleansing. Fire.

[Kyle Bennett]

you weren't grasping the distinction

You, probably unintentionally, hit upon just the right word. "Grasping" is an intentional, will-directed action. That he is failing to do so is a choice, not a failure. Rephrasing won't help a bit, count on it.

He'll probably now go on by asking something around what existence has to do with planets or spaceships.

This is all complicated by the fact that the only definition they have for "metaphysics" is the Shirley MacLain section of the bookstore.

[GinSlinger]

Timothy, Baal cannot help you now.

[LENNY]

*looking at the johnson*
**making finger movements**

I'M GOING TO CALL IT GEORGE. I'M GOING TO HUG IT AND PET IT AND...

AND

AND

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON RIVER!!!!!

(phew. what a metaphysicial, man mad, fudged spaceship experience that really slammed my saloon doors)

[Mike S.]

Good luck....

[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/mike18xx/BB.jpg[/img]

[Eric the .5b]

My apologies. Since you weren't grasping the distinction between the metaphysical and man mad[sic], I figured I'd fudge and take a baby step. I had no reason to think that a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical wouldn't just be a bit too much.

You[sic], probably unintentionally, hit upon just the right word. "Grasping" is an intentional, will-directed action. That he is failing to do so is a choice, not a failure. Rephrasing won't help a bit, count on it.

#2: Contemptuous posturing about how those who don't get it are not only stupid, but deliberately choosing not to get it.

Interesting example here, as "failing" gets redefined as "choosing to fail" - that, metaphorically, even the physical act of "grasping" is not governed by circumstance or ability, but purely by intention. It's fundamentally silly but often necessary, as many tropes are.

[Ayn_Randian]

Please don't let the saloon swing-doors hit your erudition on the way out.

I know that clarity isn't exactly a value for this current crew, but you're not making a lick of fucking sense.

And you still haven't answered why I deserve death for the State's oppression of you. As if "I" were the state...a little collective guilt, anybody?

[Billy Beck]

"This is all complicated by the fact that the only definition they have for 'metaphysics' is the Shirley MacLain section of the bookstore."

Yes.

That is unquestionably what's going on here.

[Eric the .5b]

"in all of history, there has never, ever been a single person who's said "Wow, now that you've called me an idiot I realize that you are totally right and I am totally wrong."

You're dead wrong about that.

"What is it that makes you believe your debating techniques will be the exception to this rule?"

Experience.

Yea, Billy's been "rude." So what? Are you all so young and inexperienced in life that you don't sense anything beyond the "vitriol,"

#3 - The repeated and reinforced claim that Billy's style convinces people, somewhere, with the implication that his other avatars are people who've been brought under his Svengali-like spell via him calling them idiots.

#4 - Billy is old and experienced. Those who disagree with him aren't experienced.

Note that this seems to conflict a great deal with trope #2.

[GinSlinger]

HAH, they made an ontological joke. How droll.

[Billy Beck]

Yo. Half-Ass. What's your problem? Did someone lie to you on the first day you ever saw the 'net?

[Shamus Young]

Jennifer:

As to examples of people that Billy has persuaded in spite of his blunt style:

I'm one of them.

[GinSlinger]

Must have been real hard to persuade a D20 geek into believing he is a special little snowflake because he "gets it."

[dhex]

[quote]dhex? Why aren't there any 350lbs "special-needs" Mongoloids in the NFL?

(Leaving aside jokes to the effect that there are.)

Figure it out.[/quote]

rote memorization? cause that's how you learn how to do certain things (three point stance, etc). not everything, of course - and how well you do them, and how quickly you learn to go from that starting point is the difference that makes a difference between the competent and the good, not to mention the greats who are off on their own thing, as it were. i was only barely good enough to get scouted on the lower tier dII and dIII schools. (never played and went with the scholarship cash instead)

man, but i gotta say i really like this gig where you go "hey i'm an obtuse dude so if i toss an egg and it breaks OPEN what remains CLOSED?!?!?" and then wink slyly thing.

i bet it slays the ladies.

[lunchstealer]

#4 - Billy is old and experienced. Those who disagree with him aren't experienced.

Have you ever been experienced?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:

Reason is an essential element in [being human]

Why?

Reason is the primary tool of survival for humans. Humans do not have powerful teeth, claws, or muscles to speak of -- even body-building champions, rock climbers, and ninjitsu experts are pathetic wimps by animal standards.

Reason is our primary tool for creating wealth, happiness, and longevity. Without the use of reason, we tend to die quickly and miserably. Some humans find ways to live without the use of reason, but for the most part they can only do it by sponging off the efforts of others who do.

Government is the agency which forcibly takes the products of reason away from those who produced them and gives them to others who did not -- or as Frederic Bastiat says: government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

[Billy Beck]

Thank you, Shamus. That's always a big deal to me.

In other news: get ready. The Half-wit is about to come along and say that you're me, too.

[Kyle Bennett]

Patrick,

AR was not asking why that feature is an essential element of being human, he was asking why any feature is an essential element of being human. See, there are no essential elements of being human, humans are without nature.

[dhex]

That is unquestionably what's going on here.

alternate explanation: a bunch of folks who got used to claiming any systemic issues fit into the realm of metaphysics, so that space travel has more to do with "cosmology" than it does with physics.

rhetorical deficiencies can be corrected, thankfully.

[dhex]

most importantly - 822 comments!

[GinSlinger]

. . .humans are without nature.

And this is why there can not be multiple human natures! Because there is NO human nature! Brilliant!

[dhex]

Thank you, Shamus. That's always a big deal to me.

my favorite osho rajneesh line was "a disciple is an asshole in search of a human host."

[Billy Beck]

"alternate explanation: a bunch of folks who got used to claiming any systemic issues fit into the realm of metaphysics, so that space travel has more to do with 'cosmology' than it does with physics."

Actual historical explanation: since the summary dismissal of metaphysics in professional philosophy a bit over a hundred years ago, "a bunch of people" have gone on to first ignore reality and then to make up any bloody thing they want to in its place.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Kyle wrote:

AR was not asking why that feature is an essential element of being human, he was asking why any feature is an essential element of being human.

Oh good, then I answered his question by providing an example of such a feature.

See, there are no essential elements of being human, humans are without nature.

Wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean.

[lunchstealer]

In other news: get ready. The Half-wit is about to come along and say that you're me, too.

In a way, aren't we all? But in another, more accurate way, no, but you're both identical douchebags.

[Timothy]

Wait, they dismissed metaphysics in philosophy 100 years ago? Did somebody fortget to send Heidegger the memo?

[lunchstealer]

That boozy bugger?

[GinSlinger]

He was just as sloshed as Schlegel

[Billy Beck]

Yes, Timothy. That guy was off the reservation on this, and if you examine his actual impact on the subject, you can see it. He was as goofy on the matter as he could be, but even so, philosophy has proceeded as if he'd never uttered a word.

[Jake Boone]

This thread has gotten downright epic in my absence.

There's much to say, but I really should start with Mike S., since he's returned.

Think about it: No one has ever "taught" you anything; they merely said or showed something to you at a certain time and place, and a lightbulb >clicked< on in a cartoon balloon over your head; and you thought to yourself, "That makes sense...."

In English, we call that "being taught something."

You may as well say, "You don't have a "car," you have a vehicular conveyance with four wheels that you can use to get from place to place"?

But hey, you want your very own definitions of common English words, that's fine; let's get back to how someone "merely said or showed something to you at a certain time and place."

First, a recap (and feel free to correct me if the following paraphrases are incorrect; I'm working from memory, but I think I've got the gist of it.

JB: "You guys aren't going to win hearts and minds by being assholes."

MS: "Drooling beasts can't be swayed by reason."

JB: "What about before you learned about anarchism? Weren't you swayed by reason at some point?"

MS: "No, because I figured it out on my own, after having been told/shown something that made a light go on in my head."

So here's the thing. Maybe, among the insults and misogyny, you're displaying a glint of Truth among your words. However, nobody's going to see it, because you're all obfuscating it with high-octane assholishness. Since the Jesus iconography permeates the thread, let me indulge in a parable:

The Parable of the Goatse.cx Guy

Once, there was a dealer in imported jewelry (rings, to be specific) who was having trouble making sales.

His catalog was printed on fine, glossy paper, and showed a closeup of his gaping, distended anus, which he was pulling wide open.

It was his catalog, because in the photo of his gaping, distended anus, his finest ring could be glimpsed upon his finger.

He was surprised that his sales were poor, while his neighbor up the road, who sold jewelry of somewhat lower quality at slightly higher prices, was doing more business than he could handle.

Naturally, he decided that every member of the public who didn't purchase his rings, was merely too stupid to grasp the obvious superiority of his wares.

The merchant became a bitter old man, and developed a taste for Hawaiian shirts.

The Moral: You may have a very beautiful ring, but nobody* is willing to spend much time staring into a gaping, distended anus in the hopes that you have something worth examination.

Here endeth the lesson.

*excepting perhaps Shamus

[Kyle Bennett]

As far as I can tell, you guys are the only ones trying to sell anything.

[Kyle Bennett]

Shorter Jake: Accept my premises if you want me to agree with you.

[Billy Beck]

"So here's the thing. Maybe, among the insults and misogyny, you're displaying a glint of Truth among your words. However, nobody's going to see it, because you're all obfuscating it with high-octane assholishness."

Somewhere at a dollar-store near you, there is a smiley-face with your name on it.

Maybe the State of California will force its owner to you cut a discount if you ask with the proper attitude.

[GinSlinger]

Billy Budd is lying about the disappearance of meta physics. At this site you can find hundreds of works from this century alone.

But, maybe he's too busy trying to keep up with his modest reading list.

[Jake Boone]

As far as I can tell, you guys are the only ones trying to sell anything.

You came here, remember? We aren't the Jehovah's Witnesses in this scenario, you are. Except, of course, instead of politely introducing yourselves and offering a free copy of Watchtower, you're knocking on the door and then trying to headbutt whoever opens it while calling them stupid for not having already headbutted themselves.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy Budd is lying about the disappearance of meta physics."

Call me, punk. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you my number. We'll work it out: we'll get together, and you'll call me a liar, and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot.

Get yourself up like a man and stand for your words.

[Timothy]

So what you're saying, Jake, is that they're Scientologists?

[Jake Boone]

Call me, punk. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you my number. We'll work it out: we'll get together, and you'll call me a liar, and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot.

Get yourself up like a man and stand for your words.

Yay for freedom of speech! Also, fuck off, dickwad.

[Jake Boone]

(Was that smiley enough for you?)

[GinSlinger]

Did you really just say that Billy Budd? I'll give you a moment to cool down, as I'm sure it must be troubling to be caught in a corner composed of your own ignorance and lies, but if you really, really want me to, I'll e-mail you and you can repeat that threat. That will negate non-initiation of force, and I'll respond as necessary.

Ball's in your court, but I wouldn't be so eager to live up to your namesake Billy Budd.

[Kyle Bennett]

You came here, remember?

So did you.

The difference is that I didn't come to sell anything.

[Billy Beck]

Fuck you, you rotten little shitbag. It doesn't require repetition because it's right there in front of everybody.

And if you don't know what the essence of conscious fraud is, then don't even try to hand me any jazz about initiation force. There any number of ways that you could have approached what you did which would have been within permissible bounds of reality, and you consciously picked the one that you did, which is not.

Let's work it out: say that to my face.

[Jake Boone]

There any number of ways that you could have approached what you did which would have been within permissible bounds of reality, and you consciously picked the one that you did, which is not.

Yep. Here we have the essence of the Jack-Booted Fuerher of Anarchistic Thought. Because everyone should know that calling someone a liar is, alone among all other forms of speech, a prima facie violation of the nonaggression principle.

Hooray for Billy, King of all Londinium!

[Jake Boone]

BTW, Billy, I also think you're a liar. My nose awaits your tender ministrations, O internet tough guy.

[Billy Beck]

You now how to reach me. Step right up.

[Timothy]

I have noticed that Billy's pants are aflame, your hypothesis certainly is explanatory in this regard, Mr. Boone.

[Billy Beck]

You sick little cowards.

That's what it takes to do what you do. That's all it takes.

[Jake Boone]

You now how to reach me. Step right up.

Yeah, except I have principles, and won't violate the nonaggression principle (maybe that's a little too "smiley faced" for you to understand).

So if you really want to take a poke at me, you'll have to fly out... oh, wait, you don't have a credit card, right? You'll probably have to hitchhike.

Nevertheless, if you come to Oregon and look me up, I'll attempt to explain, once more, in person, what a gaping, distended, lying asshole you are. I'll use small words, so you can understand.

XOXOXO

[Eric the .5b]

In other news: get ready. The Half-wit is about to come along and say that you're me, too.

If he's actually Shamus Young, nah. I actually know someone who's a fan of the guy's comic, so I'll ask him whether Young also happens to be an anarcho-misogynist-ubermensch-Objectivist.

[Timothy]

Observing that a statement you put forth as fact RE Metaphysics is objectively incorrect makes us sick little cowards? Is that the gist of it? Or is it the not wanting to fly my ass to NY just to get into a game of fisticuffsmanship with a balding virgin?

[VM (channeling Sir Robin)]

My my my. Such violence inherent in the system.

the violence inherent in the system.

Is Billy = The Black Knight?

"alright. we'll call it a draw"

[Richard Nikoley]

I think I once posted in my blog that there are only two people I know who just never lie: Billy Beck, and my dad.

I'm talking even about innocent white lies and such. I've known Billy for a dozen years and can't account for a single one.

Hell, Billy and I both have an interest in aviation. If I think I can stump him an email a question, I either get an answer, or "I don't know without looking it up." With all the resources where he could look up and be "smart," he just doesn't.

Billy is among the most honest people I know on earth, and it's a very small list. You're welcome to judge him impolite and there's at least an argument there, but dishonest or liar he is not.

[Eric the .5b]

Absent that verification, "As to examples of people that Billy has persuaded in spite of his blunt style: I'm one of them." does show a distinctly different and more literate writing style from the other "disciples", I will admit.

[VM]

"and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot."

well, Richard, errr, Billy, or whoever, since that's not gonna happen, nor could it, i guess you'll have to add that in with your dad's "it's only a cold sore".

so you're 0-2

[Eric the .5b]

Word from friend RE Shamus Young:

I make my roll to disbelieve.
I mean, it's possible, but I think it unlikely.

*shrug* Couldn't say, but still rather willing to believe that commenter was a different person from Billy for the same reason I'm rather less willing to think almost all of the others are.

[Jake Boone]

Actually, it occurs to me that Billy's behavior here (regrettably) embodies one of the strongest arguments against anarchism. If even the people who claim to really understand the philosophy can, through mere words alone, be so quickly induced to break what is arguably the single most important underlying principle of the philosophy... Well, that's a tough one to answer. I'll be thinking about that.

[Eric the .5b]

You came here, remember?

So did you.

The difference is that I didn't come to sell anything.

Not "we", but "I". Hmmm.

Or maybe a bunch of old friends and slavish devotees of one guy just randomly, independently showed up on this thread along with him without any prior arrangement or communication to do so.

[Eric the .5b]

Actually, it occurs to me that Billy's behavior here (regrettably) embodies one of the strongest arguments against anarchism.

Ehn, you can't judge an idea by isolated, bad devotees. Even if all these names really map to a collective of socially retarded psuedo-Objectivists who worship an angry little man, that doesn't invalidate anarcho-capitalism any more than the average Red or Blue fanboy invalidates Western liberal society.

[Billy Beck]

"I have principles, and won't violate the nonaggression principle..."

...except when you can get away with fraud at long distance.

[Billy Beck]

"You'll probably have to hitchhike."

Step up to it, son. I've got frequent-flyer miles to burn.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Jake wrote:

If even the people who claim to really understand the philosophy can, through mere words alone, be so quickly induced to break what is arguably the single most important underlying principle of the philosophy... Well, that's a tough one to answer. I'll be thinking about that.

Dammit Jake, now you got me thinking about what I would do if someone called me a liar to my face. It's been over 30 years since I actually punched someone, and that was because he punched me first (it was just tempers flaring in pick-up football). Maybe I'd just push him real hard, tell him to step off, and let him punch first ... hard to say. What's the proper etiquette here?

[lunchstealer]

That's what it takes to do what you do. That's all it takes.

And what it takes to do what you do is a juvenile honor-culture attitude and an overinflated sense of self-importance.

Neither a libertarian nor a conscientious anarchist would consider the phrase, "I don't believe the words you are saying are true." to be casus belli. What you are is an aging thug with a healthier-than-average reading list and a chip on your shoulder.

[Billy Beck]

Patrick: I have mourned the lapse of dueling due to "civilization" for decades.

Not one of these animals would have said half the things they have if they knew that they might have to be responsible in their own blood.

[Billy Beck]

"Neither a libertarian nor a conscientious anarchist would consider the phrase, "I don't believe the words you are saying are true." to be casus belli."

That's not what he said, and you know it.

[lunchstealer]

Dammit Jake, now you got me thinking about what I would do if someone called me a liar to my face. It's been over 30 years since I actually punched someone, and that was because he punched me first (it was just tempers flaring in pick-up football). Maybe I'd just push him real hard, tell him to step off, and let him punch first ... hard to say. What's the proper etiquette here?

Well, for a grown adult, and that person was being nonbelligerent, the proper etiquette is to say "No sir, I'm not a liar, and if you don't believe me I have nothing further to say to you." And then back it up by not saying anything to him. Because seriously, if he's right, you'd be wrong to punch him because he's telling the truth. If he's wrong, what the fuck do you care what he says?

[Ernest Brown]

"Dammit Jake, now you got me thinking about what I would do if someone called me a liar to my face."

The doctrine of "fighting words" would apply, as questioning someone's integrity fraudulently is indeed a violation of the "NIF" principle, which is itself not a primary but derived concept.

[lunchstealer]

I stand by my statement even with the phrase, "You are a liar and nothing you say is true, and you have indecent carnal relations with the livestock."

Because seriously, if he's right, you'd be wrong to punch him because he's telling the truth. If he's wrong, what the fuck do you care what he says?

[Billy Beck]

"I stand by my statement even with the phrase, ..."

Fuck you. You knew what you were doing when you tried to change it.

[Eric the .5b]

Dammit Jake, now you got me thinking about what I would do if someone called me a liar to my face.

Hmm. I wonder what folks would do if some guy wandered into a real-world venue, cussed everyone out, tried to pick fights, asked a woman if she'd suck his dick, threaten to knock out her teeth when that didn't cow her, etc.

I don't know, but "point and laugh" wouldn't be the general response where I come from. Said guy would be out on his ass if he were lucky.

[lunchstealer]

Feel free to believe what you want.

Nothing you say will make me seriously want to punch you in the face, short of a credible threat of violence. Because sticks and stones may break my bones, but seriously, who gives a fuck what you say?

[Ernest Brown]

"Neither a libertarian nor a conscientious anarchist would consider the phrase, "I don't believe the words you are saying are true.""

Because you have incorrectly parsed them to remove any attribution of dishonesty to the person, but only to the words themselves.

FWIW, arguing that classical metaphysics is a primary concern of modern day philosophy by doing an article headcount is as fallacious as making the same claim for the philosophy of religion by use of the same method.

[Billy Beck]

"Feel free to believe what you want."

I saw what you did, bitch.

[Eric the .5b]

The doctrine of "fighting words" would apply, as questioning someone's integrity fraudulently is indeed a violation of the "NIF" principle, which is itself not a primary but derived concept.

The doctrine of fighting words is just an acknowledgment of human weakness, akin to showing mercy to a starving thief. It does not justify the misbehavior, it just recognizes that people err, and those errors are sympathetic.

[lunchstealer]

The doctrine of fighting words is just an acknowledgment of human weakness, akin to showing mercy to a starving thief. It does not justify the misbehavior, it just recognizes that people err, and those errors are sympathetic.

Unless you're a fucking honor-culture guido, and then they're a divine-inspired right to kick anybody's ass as long as you can piss them off enough that they challenge you.

[Eric the .5b]

...Though nobody sensible would claim that someone traveling cross-country to try to start a fist-fight with someone over a metaphysics dispute was sympathetic. "Fighting words" certainly wouldn't be a defense.

[Eric the .5b]

Unless you're a fucking honor-culture guido, and then they're a divine-inspired right to kick anybody's ass as long as you can piss them off enough that they challenge you.

But even then, what kind of lame guido would travel cross-country to fight over that?

[dhex]

Not one of these animals would have said half the things they have if they knew that they might have to be responsible in their own blood.

what you say is true of the internet as a whole, to be sure. part of the downside of ease of conversation is ease of insults, threats, etc.

it's also an upside when it's funny, mind you, but funny-sad rather than funny ha-ha.

anyway, are we to presume you regularly burst into other peoples conversations to tell them what a bunch of idiots they are? have you called up norml to call them pussies yet? or better yet, used up the frequent flyer miles to tell them in person?

maybe you have! that might just be the kind of guy you are! if so, you live an interesting life. maybe you're a really scary guy; maybe you walk around armed all the time. i don't know. you do seem to be a pretty hilarious douchebag, but perhaps this is your normal persona magnified through the lens of the interwebs; yes yes i know, you're really like this all the time, the one last unyielding stone in an ocean of mediocrity, but in all seriousness (and yes yes i know you're serious all the time) threatening strangers is obviously not something anyone can keep as a mode of interaction for very long. it doesn't work for very rich drug lords, and it didn't work very well for mike tyson either.

one upside to dueling cultures - at least in theory, though never in implementation that i know of - is that it does tend to remove male hotheads from the social pool one way or the other. however, it also demonstrates the unending and unfortunate tyranny of might making right, and the very human desire for bloodshed to protect social status) but that's another story for another thread. as jake pointed out, it's a pretty funny demonstration of why societies need someone to beat up the other aggressive types - channeling the cop inside or however you want to put it - and why anarchism is having a picnic somewhere with real communism and the true free market.

which is probably part of your thing, really. you get to do this routine - practiced, to be sure - and you feel better about yourself, and that's good for you. it's good for everyone. we get a laugh about it, you enter the land of legend just a little bit, and everyone gets to leave feeling superior. it's a zero sum game that's actually not, but since we're all going to act like it is, it actually is.

[Andrew]

"I saw what you did, bitch."

Your amusing attempt to provoke an irrational reaction similar to yours in others aside, the proper phrasing is "I see what you did there."

[Ernest Brown]

"The doctrine of fighting words is just an acknowledgment of human weakness, akin to showing mercy to a starving thief. It does not justify the misbehavior, it just recognizes that people err, and those errors are sympathetic."

That's under the current legal system, which is why I made reference to the NIF principle in the context of anarcho-capitalism. Challenging someone's integrity without cause in a society of traders without centralized authority is indeed a grievous initiation of force.

[lunchstealer]

Apparently, a retarded guido.

Or, he's lying about being willing to fly down and deliver said nose-punching. In which case he is a liar.

He's either a liar or a psychopath. I'm leaning towards liar, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[lunchstealer]

"I saw what you did, bitch."

Your amusing attempt to provoke an irrational reaction similar to yours in others aside, the proper phrasing is "I see what you did there."

He's old. Give him a break.

[dhex]

just fyi to the scholars out there, threating to break someone's nose could be considered "fighting words" of a far greater magnitude than calling someone a liar.

though i don't think either would hold up very well when the extra detail - "via the internet" was introduced. (of course, i am not a lawyer, so you may wish to retain your own council and ask them before engaging in said behavior.)

[Billy Beck]

"anyway, are we to presume you regularly burst into other peoples conversations to tell them what a bunch of idiots they are?"

When it comes to that, you can presume just about anything you want to, but the fact is that I have actually made progress in all this. I take my own chances, and that's none of your affair, unless you're interested in a face-to-face, in which case you and I might -- having no other precipitant at the moment -- come to reasonable terms. Otherwise, you can save your impertinence for someone who can't see through it.

[dhex]

But even then, what kind of lame guido would travel cross-country to fight over that?

as someone who grew up in jersey and now lives in brooklyn, man i gotta tell you that they're probably out there. especially armenian guidos, since they're far more connected to the masculine, immigrant honor culture and a bit more stabby than their more vain italian counterparts.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

lunchstealer wrote:

Well, for a grown adult, and that person was being nonbelligerent, the proper etiquette is to say "No sir, I'm not a liar, and if you don't believe me I have nothing further to say to you." And then back it up by not saying anything to him. Because seriously, if he's right, you'd be wrong to punch him because he's telling the truth. If he's wrong, what the fuck do you care what he says?

That sounds about right if he's not belligerent: in that situation I would certainly not lead with physical contact (e.g. shoving). He'd have to start poking me in the chest before I shoved him. Fortunately I don't hang out with rowdy British football fans or raging Internet socialists, so these kinds of situations are unlikely to occur.

[Billy Beck]

"I'm leaning towards liar, but I'm willing to be proven wrong."

Phonies don't phone. Try me.

[lunchstealer]

Again. Either liar or psychopath.

[dhex]

Otherwise, you can save your impertinence for someone who can't see through it.

or what?

you're some stringy haired blowjob from the internets who writes about a subset of a subset of a political philosophy so far off the radar that it might as well be out in space. now that's not really the problem, mind you - all sorts of crazy people out there add to the rich tapestry of life - but that you add tuff guy sauce on top of that is very disconcerting. maybe you have a tremendous amount of personal magnetism, or charisma, or maybe you're just creepy - i don't know.

maybe someday i'll meet you and find out, though that seems unlikely. but stranger things have happened.

in the meantime maybe you could do a video blog or something?

[Billy Beck]

You could find out if you had the nerve that your words pose.

[Jennifer]

I have mourned the lapse of dueling due to "civilization" for decades. Not one of these animals would have said half the things they have if they knew that they might have to be responsible in their own blood.

Or teeth, O Brave and Honorable One! Without The State to protect them from your righteous rage with its immoral anti-dueling laws, O how the regulars here would tremble at your wrath.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

dhex wrote:

a subset of a subset of a political philosophy so far off the radar that it might as well be out in space

Whoa whoa whoa! What subset do you mean? Are you talking about my selfish-ass desire to keep every single gram of gold I earn until I decide to spend it? That's far off the radar and I might as well be out in space? Well count me in because I am a Piiiig iiiiin spaaaaace!1!

[dhex]

billy, let me explain this another way:

you're a stringy-haired blowjob from the internets. the value to be added to my life by beating you up, or being beaten up by you, or some combination thereof is fairly nil. i don't care if you think i'm a liar, or a pussy, or bald - actually, i am bald, but haircare is not really the issue here.

[dhex]

Are you talking about my selfish-ass desire to keep every single gram of gold I earn until I decide to spend it?

obviously!

[Andrew]

He's old. Give him a break.

But he wears a hawaiian shirt to rebel! He plays guitar! He has a leather jacket! Only young and relevant people do those things, right? Right?

[Billy Beck]

Patrick: I wonder if you would e-mail me.

Someone rang into my box with a question about you.

[Ron Good]

I'm sure the headline meant "treasury"..

[Jake Boone]

Hang on a second. What, precisely, are you proposing, Billy? How may I most efficiently validate my lack of cowardice to your satisfaction?

If you are really intent on fisticuffs, just book a flight to Eugene, Oregon. Let me know your flight number and when you'll be landing, and I'll meet you there. The TSA will undoubtedly have put you in just the right mood for a good nose-breaking, and when you spot me, you can violate the non-aggression principle all you want. Well, once, really. But you can try to break it more times.

The best thing is, you know I won't break the NAP because, of the two of us, I'm the one with principles! It'll be fun, and educational! Let me know!

[Ron Good]

Jennifer: I see you're still around. You want to show where Billy said something/anything like "anyone who would actually pay taxes is as bad as a Nazi or something"?

After all, you're the one who explicitly said he did so, and has proceeded throughout this thread as if that were a fact.

[Elliot]

lunch: I stand by my statement even with the phrase, "You are a liar and nothing you say is true, and you have indecent carnal relations with the livestock."

Because seriously, if he's right, you'd be wrong to punch him because he's telling the truth. If he's wrong, what the fuck do you care what he says?

Suppose someone said, to a crowd of people gathered round a horrible tragedy, "Mr. Lunch pushed that baby carriage in front of the bus." Would your attitude be the same? If he is wrong, why would you care?

At what point does someone's accusations go from the petty to the real-as-a-heart-attack serious?

[Jake Boone]

...except when you can get away with fraud at long distance.

By the way, Billy, care to explain how me declaring, "Billy, I also think you're a liar" constitutes fraud?

Because, in all seriousness, when you make that claim, I think you're lying.

[Billy Beck]

"...just book a flight to Eugene, Oregon..."

Call me.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

900 POSTS? ARE YOU FOR REAL BILLY BECK? I CRY HAM TEARS FOR YOU.

[Cin]

Ron
Jennifer misquotes to just to serve her own purpose here. It would seem that she is intent on badgering Billy.

[Ernest Brown]

Richard,

"Billy is among the most honest people I know on earth, and it's a very small list. You're welcome to judge him impolite and there's at least an argument there, but dishonest or liar he is not."

You're being unusually irenic, Richard. We're dealing with a sad bunch of cases here, jokers who think that doing counts of article tag words is a substitute for a reasoned discussion of the place that traditional systematic metaphysics has in modern philosophy. When called out on it, they have no other recourse than to make ridiculous charges of "lying."

"Lunchstealer" (an apt self-description) is right on one point. All of these lotus-eaters put together couldn't have enough of a presumption to personal integrity and honor to call -anyone- a "liar" without it being a shining endorsement of the truthfulness of their target.

[Ron Good]

"I'm leaning towards liar, but I'm willing to be proven wrong."

Phonies don't phone. Try me.

lunchstealer: I mean no disrespect with this:

I know Billy well enough to know that's not a threat--and it's not because he wants a chance to yell at you voice to voice.

Sure, it's a challenge, but it's also an invitation, and I'd bet money it'd be worth your while in ways you might never expect.

Make your move. He's only an email away.

Or not--but that'll say more about you than him.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I'm rather less willing to think almost all of the others are."

Then you're a fucking moron.

It's all easy enough to verify (you can research the various blogs, for one), which means you'd rather be dishonest and smear in the name of whatever you're aiming to accomplish rather than exercise a modicum of due diligence.

You all do realize that you gave up the essential argument eons ago and have been engaged in a futile attempt to shield the fact that Billy was right from the start.

800+ posts to call attention to the fact that Billy's a prick -- by means of being a bunch of being a bunch of pricks.

What geniuses. What REASON.

[Eric the .5b]

That's under the current legal system, which is why I made reference to the NIF principle in the context of anarcho-capitalism.

See, my problem with anarcho-anythingism is that there would be a lot of people with similarly absurd concepts of the NIF. Dueling doesn't end up with peace or freedom, it just ends up with more people getting killed, or people afraid to contradict some wild-eyed guy with a gun going through a mid-life crisis.

We can get both those results with a state.

[Billy Beck]

Bullshit.

You could get those results by behaving like a man.

[Cin]

We can get both those results with a state.

You keep thinking that way and this country will continue to deteriorate. What a brain! You are missing the whole point. So I take it your all for gun control?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Actually, it occurs to me that Billy's behavior here (regrettably) embodies one of the strongest arguments against anarchism. If even the people who claim to really understand the philosophy can, through mere words alone, be so quickly induced to break what is arguably the single most important underlying principle of the philosophy... Well, that's a tough one to answer. I'll be thinking about that."

I have often taken note over the last 15 years that in general, anarchists are by far the smartest and politically astute people I've ever come in contact with. I do take pride in counting myself among them -- and that goes for lots of left anarchists too.

I can honestly say I've never come across one remotely as stupid as you.

It's a remarkably easy assessment. You really ought to lose the label until you figure out your ass from your head.

[Jake Boone]

Said Lunchstealer:

Dueling doesn't end up with peace or freedom, it just ends up with more people getting killed, or people afraid to contradict some wild-eyed guy with a gun going through a mid-life crisis.

We can get both those results with a state.

Responded Billy:

Bullshit.

You could get those results by behaving like a man.

WTF? Billy, have your meds expired?

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

"What geniuses. What REASON."

RICHARD NIKOLEY! DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE DONE? YOU HAVE FORCED A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL TO GO OUT AND BUY ALCOHOL, BECAUSE SHE MUST

DRINK!

[Jake Boone]

I can honestly say I've never come across one remotely as stupid as you.

Well, perhaps if you'll remove your nose from Billy's ass, you'll see them. They're surrounding you, like the dead people in the Sixth Sense.

[Jennifer]

Every time another pro-anarchy post appears here, a socialist in heaven gets his wings.

[Billy Beck]

"WTF? Billy, have your meds expired?"

{sigh} There are no meds and never have been. I'm just a little tired, and I can goof just like anyone else.

[Jake Boone]

Call me.

Why? So you can have my phone number?

I think I'd prefer to insulate my family from you as much as possible. It seems clear that, aside from philosophies or whatever other redeeming qualities you may have, you're an aggressive nutbag.

I'll still show up at the airport, though, if you wanna visit. I'll even buy you an ice-cream cone with my Federal Reserve Notes (none of the Baskin-Robbins around here accept bullion).

[Ernest Brown]

"What geniuses. What REASON."

It seems that my last post has been taken over by events.

[Billy Beck]

"Why? So you can have my phone number?"

More bullshit. You could do it without involving that and you know it.

[Cin]

"Why? So you can have my phone number?"

More bullshit. You could do it without involving that and you know it.

Now, Billy we all, and I am assuming here, know that one can have their number blocked from caller ID. Or am I giving credit where it isn't due? This is just one more evasive move.

[Elliot]

Jennifer: Every time another pro-anarchy post appears here, a socialist in heaven gets his wings.

Do you think the people who hole government power are ever justified in kicking a grandmother to the curb for not paying property taxes, which she never agreed to do, and for which she derives no benefit? Does it matter if other people are convinced that it is justified?

What are your views on greed, power, and the nature of being human?

[Ron Good]

my problem with anarcho-anythingism is that there would be a lot of people with similarly absurd concepts of the NIF

In other words, you are more afraid of your neighbours than you are of The State. (I'd mentioned that fear more generally in an earlier post).

Fair enough, but don't then claim that you're offering your neighbours "freedom" or "liberty" as a political solution.

[Jake Boone]

You could do it without involving that and you know it.

Now that you mention it, maybe I could (I've got one of them newfangled VoIP phones, so lemme see if I can figure out how to make that happen).

Oh, one more thing: Why?

[Billy Beck]

You'll find out if you do.

[Ernest Brown]

"More bullshit. You could do it without involving that and you know it."

It's obvious that you're dealing with someone who can't figure out the nuances of blocking caller ID, something that even telemarketers can manage. Richard now has even more empirical evidence for his charge of gross stupidity against lil' Jakey-Poo.

[Billy Beck]

Don't be a Judy, "Jake". Don't take the counsel of fear. Just do it.

[Richard Nikoley]

"By the way, Billy, care to explain how me declaring, "Billy, I also think you're a liar" constitutes fraud?"

Are you fucking serious? You call yourself an anarchist and you can't run that down 10 ways from Sunday?

Jesus.

[Jennifer]

And so that beautiful parable doesn't even apply any more, now that there's shit all over the ring.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

BILLY, BILLY DON'T YOU LOSE MY NUMBER
COS YOU'RE NOT ANYWHERE
THAT I CAN FIND YOU
OH NOW BILLY, BILLY DON'T YOU LOSE MY NUMBER
COS YOU'RE NOT ANYWHERE THAT I CAN FIND YOU

[Jake Boone]

You'll find out if you do.

Don't get me wrong; I'm considering it, despite the "open your mouth and close your eyes" vibe I'm getting here. Though all the "Judy" shit isn't really pushing me toward calling you. It just makes me that much more interested in figuring out your angle before diving into the crazy.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You're being unusually irenic, Richard."

In these situations I have often employed the "good cop" routine for a bit. It's often effective when you have a couple of honest people in the bunch. They'll eventually shame the others into ceasing the posturing for effect.

It's funny you should bring it up know though, cause you'll see that's pretty much over. I guess it was the workout over at the gym, or something, but I've lost all patience with this.

[Ernest Brown]

"Are you fucking serious? You call yourself an anarchist and you can't run that down 10 ways from Sunday?"

No reasoning ability and no integrity make for a noxious little Jakie cocktail.

[Jake Boone]

Are you fucking serious? You call yourself an anarchist and you can't run that down 10 ways from Sunday?

You call yourself an anarchist and you can't figure out why telling the truth is not fraud?

Why don't you try actually putting forth a cogent argument that it is fraud, instead of constantly retreating back to the "you don't already know what I'm thinking? Ohmigod!" tactic?

So go ahead. Educate me.

[dhex]

In these situations I have often employed the "good cop" routine for a bit. It's often effective when you have a couple of honest people in the bunch. They'll eventually shame the others into ceasing the posturing for effect.

that's interesting.

you're all very interesting people.

very interesting.

[Ron Good]

>Why? So you can have my phone number?

You owe me a new keyboard. I was drinking coffee when I read that.

I'll place dollars to donuts that not for an instant did Billy think of it in anywhere near those terms. You have no good reason to be so cautious, but feel free to play someone who does on the Internet if you think that helps your cause.

[Richard Nikoley]

"They're surrounding you, like the dead people in the Sixth Sense."

Look, fuckwad: you all are even more intellectually clueless and less honest than Bob's disciples, and they can be pretty dammed annoying.

[Billy Beck]

"Though all the 'Judy' shit isn't really pushing me toward calling you."

Look, asshole: if you actually scrape up the nerve to do it, I fully expect that you'll maintain your tone.

[Jennifer]

It would be so fucking sweet if our Jake did call them and then turned out to have been a 13-year-old girl all along, and when the anarchists are all sent off to pedo prison they'll say "See? The state yet again infringing on the liberty of the individual!" and we'll all giggle and reply "Dude, we're libertarians. That's what we strive for."

[Jake Boone]

You have no good reason to be so cautious [...]

I stand corrected; up until now, Billy has been the very epitome of courtesy.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You call yourself an anarchist and you can't figure out why telling the truth is not fraud?

It's not. I never said nor implied that it is.

Listen, boy: you do need education. You had your chance with me for a whole day and now you can just go fuck right off.

[Jennifer]

You had your chance with me for a whole day and now you can just go fuck right off.

Of all sad words of tongue or pen
the saddest are "it might have been."

[Jake Boone]

Look, asshole: if you actually scrape up the nerve to do it, I fully expect that you'll maintain your tone.

Oh, if I call, I'll be happy to adopt whatever tone seems appropriate at the time.

Or maybe I'll roll a d20 and consult a chart, who knows?

Seriously, though, if I call, what do I win? "Character" points? The esteem of your groupies? Unless it's to discuss the particulars of your flight to Eugene, of course, I'm not seeing a lot of upside.

It isn't a matter of "nerve," of course... you're an entire continent away from me, so don't think I'm somehow cowed by your awesome, transcontinental omnipotence.

[Elliot]

Jennifer: It would be so fucking sweet if our Jake did call them and then turned out to have been a 13-year-old girl all along...

Your scenario doesn't involve anything in the same neighborhood as pedophilia. What is wrong with you?

Again, could you add something of substance to these comments, like answering the questions I put forth here?

[Billy Beck]

"Seriously, though, if I call, what do I win?"

A glimpse of reality. That's what.

[Jennifer]

Your scenario doesn't involve anything in the same neighborhood as pedophilia. What is wrong with you?

HA! You pride yourself on your omnipotent knowledge of the evils of The State and don't know how pathetically little it takes for the Feds to totally trash your life in the name of The Children these days? Naive. What is wrong with you?

Eyes. Blinders. Remove. Posthaste.

[Jake Boone]

"You call yourself an anarchist and you can't figure out why telling the truth is not fraud?

It's not. I never said nor implied that it is.

Well, let's examine this exchange:

"By the way, Billy, care to explain how me declaring, "Billy, I also think you're a liar" constitutes fraud?"

Are you fucking serious? You call yourself an anarchist and you can't run that down 10 ways from Sunday?

Jesus.

FIrstly, let me assure you that I do indeed think Billy is a liar.

Okay, now, point out the "fraud." Where, precisely, have I deprived Billy of value through falsehood? You're smarter than me, right? You should have no problem doing this.

Or is your definition of "fraud" along the lines of your group's definitions of "taught" or "nature" (i.e. something unrelated to standard English)?

[Billy Beck]

"I do indeed think Billy is a liar."

Prove it.

[Richard Nikoley]

"FIrstly, let me assure you that I do indeed think Billy is a liar."

Why? Explicitly.

Whether I respond further will be based on you response.

[Jake Boone]

Prove it.

Comedy gold!

After "proving" a thought in my head, I'll be sure to go on to prove there is no God, and, for the hat trick, I'll prove that I'm the only one who exists, and the rest of you exist only in my dreams.

I think you're definitely crazy, but I still haven't quite figured out what particular brand of crazy. It's an amazing brand, though, I expect!

[Richard Nikoley]

"After "proving" a thought in my head."

Being so pathetically obtuse is not a characteristic of any anarchist I've ever encountered.

Why do you have that thought in your head? Explicitly.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

BILLY BECK CANNOT READ.

JAKE BOONE WROTE: "I do indeed think Billy is a liar."

BILLY BECK RESPONDED: "Prove it."

JAKE BOONE HAS STATED HIS OPINION. THE STATEMENT ITSELF PROVIDES THE PROOF OF HIS OPINION, UNLESS ONE THINKS THAT JAKE IS LYING ABOUT HIS OWN OPINION. OCCAM'S RAZOR WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

[Elliot]

Jennifer: You pride yourself on your omnipotent knowledge of the evils of The State...

Don't make things up. I don't care about that fantasy, one way or another, anyway.

I am wondering if you're ever going to respond to this?

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Cin | December 18, 2007, 8:38pm | #
"Why? So you can have my phone number?"

More bullshit. You could do it without involving that and you know it.

Now, Billy we all, and I am assuming here, know that one can have their number blocked from caller ID. Or am I giving credit where it isn't due? This is just one more evasive move.

CONGRATULATIONS. BY AVOIDING THE WORDS "A LOT" IN THAT CONSTELLATION, YOU DID NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE. THE PASTELS DO HAVE A SOOTHING EFFECT.

[Richard Nikoley]

Ah, so chubby bitch jumps on the pathetically obtuse bandwagon.

Everyone very clearly knows what he meant and to pretend otherwise serves merely to confess your own clueless stupidity.

The original fraud, i.e., the blatant attempt to steal Billy's integrity without a shred of reasonable cause, was done by whoever did that (I don't recall which of you assholes). The rest of you assholes are attempting to profit from the original fraud and hiding behind pathetic excuses and qualifications.

[Ron Good]

Billy has been the very epitome of courtesy.

Look Jake, it isn't fraud when you say you think Billy is a liar if you actually do think so. You'd be wrong, but not fraudulent. You'd be acting on an honest belief--an error of knowledge, not malice.

Ginslinger, though, got called out because he flat out stated that "Billy Budd is lying about the disappearance of meta physics.

Because if Ginslinger is anywhere near as familiar as he's posturing to be with the reading material he pointed to, he also knows that Billy is far from alone in his view--and that Billy's view is shared by a number of quite reasonable people. So he knows better than to say Billy was lying. And pretending he didn't know better *is* fraud. It's lying.

Well...or just abysmally stupid.

[dhex]

how does one steal integrity?

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

RICHARD NIKOLEY, YOUR POST OF

December 18, 2007, 9:28pm

INDICATES THAT YOU ARE A MORON.

[Richard Nikoley]

"how does one steal integrity?"

How about you give yourself more than 2-3 minutes to figure it out, i.e., to ascertain the essence of what I mean. Ask me again in 30.

Clue: destroying a reputation. More that I ought to give you, but I liked the "very interesting people" remark.

[Jake Boone]

Why? Explicitly.

Well, let's start with this. He puts himself forward as a supporter of self-ownership, and claims to be principled on the matter. His words on this thread (regarding nose-breaking as a response to speech, for example) are not the words of someone who actually is principled in the matter of self-ownership.

There's also the matter of his historical Iraq hawkism. Maybe they're someone else's words, but the tone leads me to believe that they're his (and, of course, I've seen no claims that an impostor wrote them). Invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis (who, by the way, did us absolutely no harm before we invaded) is a gross violation of the principle of self-ownership.

That evidence is enough for me to consider him a liar.

[Jake Boone]

I said:

Or is your definition of "fraud" along the lines of your group's definitions of "taught" or "nature" (i.e. something unrelated to standard English)?

Richard said:

The original fraud, i.e., the blatant attempt to steal Billy's integrity without a shred of reasonable cause, was done by whoever did that (I don't recall which of you assholes). The rest of you assholes are attempting to profit from the original fraud and hiding behind pathetic excuses and qualifications.

Ah, gotcha. You've got new, personal definitions for both "fraud" and "profit". Well-played, sir!

[Billy Beck]

"After 'proving' a thought in my head, I'll be sure to go on to prove there is no God, and, for the hat trick, I'll prove that I'm the only one who exists, and the rest of you exist only in my dreams.

I think you're definitely crazy, but I still haven't quite figured out what particular brand of crazy. It's an amazing brand, though, I expect!"

Okay, I'm done with you.

To however many rational readers there are left for this whole thing: if you take it at its words, consider that you've just seen something purporting to be a grown human being unable to connect the sounds in his head to anything in reality, and then posit that someone else is "crazy".

Take a good long look at this whole collection of comments here. You're going to find people whose antipathy to ideas is surpassed only by their attitudes. (This is commonly known as "bigotry".) You'll find them among outright mau-mau howlings of stark homunculi making not the least pretense of mental effort on anything like the subjects at hand.

All this under the "Reason" banner, mind you. (That's a note for the people who own this place. You deserve the indictment.)

Take a good look, because you're looking at the future.

Think about that.

And then: consider that they're going to cheer when they read this.

[Cin]

CONGRATULATIONS. BY AVOIDING THE WORDS "A LOT" IN THAT CONSTELLATION, YOU DID NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE. THE PASTELS DO HAVE A SOOTHING EFFECT.

You still won't give it up! Are we in grade school? You still haven't lost the caps. Can't you find the shift key? Just hit it once and it unlocks.....a lot! Oh and I'm not a pastel kinda girl....I love BLACK!

[Patrick Chkoreff]

I wrote:

Are you talking about my selfish-ass desire to keep every single gram of gold I earn until I decide to spend it?

dhex wrote:

obviously!

You are insolent, rude, and arrogant to presume upon the disposition of my property. Barnyard animals have better manners. Your thoughts are a tributary to that public sewer known as the Main Stream.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

RICHARD NIKOLEY, YOUR POST OF

December 18, 2007, 9:35pm

CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES YOUR ILLITERACY.

THE WORD "STEAL" MEANS TO TAKE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.

TO CALL SOMEONE A LIAR MAY DAMAGE THAT PERSON'S REPUTATION, BUT IT DOES CONSTITUTE "STEALING" IN ANY PLAIN MEANING USE OF THE WORD.

[Billy Beck]

BTW: anyone want to ask me about my Iraq hawkism?

You'll really enjoy it.

[dhex]

Clue: destroying a reputation. More that I ought to give you, but I liked the "very interesting people" remark.

hmmm.

how are reputations built? what holds them together?

[GinSlinger]

Okay, okay, okay, I've had to skip a bit, but seriously!

Billy Budd said that no philosopher had touched the subject of metaphysics for over 100 years. Billy Budd has set himself up as a learned expert. I pointed out to him a reading list of over 100 titles from last century alone--books mind you, not articles.

Therefore, Billy was either lying that he was an expert, or lying about the fact that no work is done in metaphysics. I don't care which it is, that's his to parse.

Billy Budd, is A LIAR. And he was the one commiting fraud, not me, the link is there, click the mofo.

Billy Budd, fly your happy ass to Austin, TX, send me a message via this forum, I'll meet you, in the parking lot, and don't forget the laws of this state. Also, you have threatened violence through the interTubes--a federal offence, and loathe as I may be to do it, you violated NIF first.

Oh, and Billy Budd, still waiting for anything approaching an argument from you. Not from your "boyz," but from you.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

"All this under the "Reason" banner"

DRINK!

[lunchstealer]

You could find out if you had the nerve that your words pose.

You mistake contempt for nerve. I make no pretense of nerve. If you really will punch me in the face, then you're a psychopath, and I see no reason to get punched in the face by a psychopath when I could just as easily not. If you're a liar, then I see no point in letting you lie over the phone. That would just be enabling your problem.

So either way, I'm not talking on the phone to someone who acts like you do.

[dhex]

You are insolent, rude, and arrogant to presume upon the disposition of my property. Barnyard animals have better manners. Your thoughts are a tributary to that public sewer known as the Main Stream.

sir, you dropped your monocle!

[dhex]

ps i don't really give a fig what you do with your lucky charms. i'm not very interesting folk magic.

[Jake Boone]

Okay, I'm done with you.

Convenient timing.

[Ron Good]

Jake:

"Prove it" means nothing more than providing your reasonable evidence that Billy is a liar.

Or is your "belief" just a malicious whim?

[Jake Boone]

Clue: destroying a reputation. More that I ought to give you, but I liked the "very interesting people" remark.

So "fraud" would, under your definition, extend to saying anything damaging to a reputation, like, perhaps...

Look, fuckwad: you all are even more intellectually clueless and less honest than Bob's disciples, and they can be pretty dammed annoying.

...or maybe...

Ah, so chubby bitch jumps on the pathetically obtuse bandwagon.

Everyone very clearly knows what he meant and to pretend otherwise serves merely to confess your own clueless stupidity.

Can we also then conclude that under your particular mutation of anarchism, an individual owns his reputation, despite the fact that a reputation is, in fact, made up entirely of the opinions of other people?

How much time do you spend seriously examining your own beliefs, as opposed to the amount of time you spend travelling around the internet finding new people to play "good cop" with?

[GinSlinger]

Because if Ginslinger is anywhere near as familiar as he's posturing to be with the reading material he pointed to, he also knows that Billy is far from alone in his view--and that Billy's view is shared by a number of quite reasonable people. So he knows better than to say Billy was lying. And pretending he didn't know better *is* fraud. It's lying.

NOW who's the second hander? Seriously? Another appeal to authority? What is wrong with you people.

Face it, Billy Budd lied, intentionally, he is a liar, and a fraud. So be it.

[dhex]

one is the loneliest number.

now, let's get back to reputations.

every single communicative act is an act of either relationship building or relationship destruction.

in part, reputation grows out of this interaction.

now, in order for someone to impact one's reputation - to injure it - one has to have some kind of standing within the community that monitors the subject's reputation. reputations are not held in solitary confinement, obviously, but a social phenomenon.

so in order to injure billy's reputation, jake boone, et al would have to have some kind of standing within the social circle billy maintains his reputation in.

unless someone impersonates billy convincingly enough to - for example - post messages about getting a bank account or what have you - that would genuinely injure his relationship within his social group, there's no way to even begin to "steal" that from him.

the same goes for damaging his reputation.

[Jake Boone]

Ron,

You might have missed this post.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy Budd said that no philosopher had touched the subject of metaphysics for over 100 years."

That's not true. You could look it up.

[Ron Good]

Convenient timing.

Ah. Just about to call were you?

[Billy Beck]

"Convenient timing."

You cannot be taken seriously. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take me seriously.

Call me.

Don't do it tonight. I'm about to leave the house for a while.

[Jake Boone]

Convenient timing.

Ah. Just about to call were you?

Not until after dinner. I was referring to this.

EDIT: Not tonight at all, apparently.

[Elliot]

Elliot: I don't care about that fantasy...

Actually, on second thought, looking at this and that , I'm wondering exactly why you would be cheering if people who did nothing in the realm of harm to a child would be locked up on false pretenses? Do you have no regard for principles?

If Mike Huckabee were sent to prison for having oral sex with his wife, after supporting that law, I wouldn't cheer. I wouldn't cheer if he were locked up doing meth, marrying two men, and buying the services of male prostitutes who were illegal aliens--even though he would no doubt demand the imprisonment of others. It's wrong to punish people who have done nothing wrong, no matter who they are.

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy Budd said that no philosopher had touched the subject of metaphysics for over 100 years.

You're the fucking liar, GizzSlinger. You can't even claim that's an honest paraphrase, there's simply no way to translate what Billy actually said into that without full knowledge and intention.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

sir, you dropped your monocle!

Ah look, I tapped his discordian nerve and made him twitch.

[Ron Good]

that wasn't an appeal to authority; it was just evidence that Billy's is an honestly held view, not a lie.

[lunchstealer]

I know Billy well enough to know that's not a threat--and it's not because he wants a chance to yell at you voice to voice.

Sure, it's a challenge, but it's also an invitation, and I'd bet money it'd be worth your while in ways you might never expect.

Make your move. He's only an email away.

Or not--but that'll say more about you than him.

Are you saying that all this "I'll punch your nose in" and "I'll knock your teeth out" is all some sort of game and he doesn't mean it? Then he can say that himself.

If it's not all talk, and he really is willing to resort to violence over the shit people say in an internet thread, I don't actually want to talk to him, and y'all might think about reining your friend in. Because seriously, he's acting like a thug.

Everyone here is ridiculing him, and it's not because he thinks that it's a bad idea for NORML to be complicit in or supportive of California taxation. It's because he came in and acted like a choad to everyone here.

I just don't care at this point whether he CAN be clever/smart/interesting. He's been such a dick that I'm done. If he's willing to be this much of a dick for this long, he doesn't have the temperament to maintain a sensible discussion. At the first sign of trouble he'll go atomic douchebag and turn a discussion into a shouting match.

Like Gunnels, Dan T., Dave W., and Jersey McJones before him, he'll be a fuckwad. And if not, well, that's for him to prove.

[Ginslinger]

It's a damned good paraphrase

Refute this: Billy Budd said: since the summary dismissal of metaphysics in professional philosophy a bit over a hundred years ago

I have an OED for all of you that can't seem to agree on the definition of words, but Billy Budd there just said that metaphysics has been ignored by the philosophical community for over 100 years.

And Billy Budd, you martyr you, why don't you give us your phone number on this forum? You've already gone further than that. Do it, otherwise you are a coward as well as a fraud, hcarlatain, liar, and possibly cad, oh, and judging by your photo, a failed dady. and balding fop.

If you wish to discuss fraud by character assassination, might I suggest you start with Kyle's 10:23 comment? Yet, for some reason, I have not threatened violence again Snr. Bennett (Eric, was that the third Billy, or the second?)

[Elliot]

lunch: Are you saying that all this "I'll punch your nose in" and "I'll knock your teeth out" is all some sort of game and he doesn't mean it?

You want to explain why you put that phrase in quotes?

he doesn't have the temperament to maintain a sensible discussion. At the first sign of trouble he'll go atomic douchebag and turn a discussion into a shouting match.

... he'll be a fuckwad. And if not, well, that's for him to prove.

Maybe you want to keep playing the role of the fakir. But you (or whoever) could call the guy and quit all the speculation. What if you're wrong about him? Does that matter at all to you?

[Kyle Bennett]

You're right GizzSlinger, you do have a problem with defining words. You want words to be like a greased pig, too slippery to ever pin down to just one thing. That way you can never be held to account for the accuracy of anything you say. You're a fucking liar, and everyone that's honest here knows it. And the ones that aren't don't matter.

Dismissal does not mean a failure to address. As in, in this post, I am dismissing you as a significant factor in this discussion, and doing so by addressing you directly.

[Elliot]

Gin: Do it, otherwise you are a coward...

How do you figure?

[Elliot]

Kyle: You [Ginslinger] want words to be like a greased pig, too slippery to ever pin down to just one thing.

I'm a bit confused by that statement. I don't defend that Gin guy, in general, but by my recollection, he's complained about the nuances of meaning in various contexts being too ambiguous for his tastes. To what are you referring?

[Richard Nikoley]

"regarding nose-breaking as a response to speech, for example"

You see? You really can't deal with the facts of the matter and the explicit reason Billy responded as he did.

You, and others, find a constant need to re-frame things in ways that don't reflect the actual context of the matter at hand.

[Cin]

Aside from the possibility of feeling inadequate, there simply is no reason to not give Billy a call. Unless ofcourse there is some fear of knowledge that would most likely be gained from that call. There is also the possiblity that the caller may be afraid that their judgement of Billy may very well be way off and the possibility of having to admit this to everyone on here.

[Kyle Bennett]

Elliot, I'm basing it on his statements directly leading up to this. I honestly can't keep the cast of idiots straight for the entirety of the thread. Using "ignore" in one sense as a synonym for "dismiss", then using it a different way to assert that examples of writers referring to metaphysics contradicts Billy's assertion of dismissal is pretty damning. There's a name for that fallacy, using the same word two different ways in an argument, but I can't think of it offhand.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You've got new, personal definitions for both "fraud" and "profit"."

Again, you choose to create diversions, alter context, ignore clear meaning, shift context.

In fact, my usage of those concepts is perfectly acceptable and clear. You know what I mean, and to pretend that you don't simply means that you really can't deal with what I mean, which is the issue.

Why? Not that I don't know, but you ought to ask yourself why you and the others are focussed trying to nit pick any substantive issue that arises.

[Richard Nikoley]

"THE WORD "STEAL" MEANS..."

See my last comment, chubby bitch. It applies to most of you.

[Kyle Bennett]

There is also the possiblity that the caller may be afraid that their judgement of Billy may very well be way off

Which in itself leads to the fear that then their judgment of Billy's argument might be way off (since their judgment of his argument is entirely rooted in their judgment of him, rather than its own merits). Then their whole world of belief collapses around them. Can't have that.

Watch, they'll now all chime in with "but he's never made an argument".

[Kyle Bennett]

You, and others, find a constant need to re-frame things in ways that don't reflect the actual context of the matter at hand

"Every philosophical error is an error of context". As is every philosophical lie.

[Elliot]

I see what you mean, Kyle. Thanks.

[Richard Nikoley]

"how are reputations built? what holds them together?"

Look, I'm not interested. If you can't grasp the essential meaning (even _if_ I wasn't using some definitions precisely, you all are admitting that you're clueless to metaphor, simile, analogy) of what it means to "steal someone's integrity," then I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're more interested in finding ways to nit pick and divert than to come to any level of honest understanding or agreement.

[Cin]

Kyle, Your have hit the damn nail right on the head and drove it all the way home!

[Richard Nikoley]

"So "fraud" would, under your definition, extend to saying anything damaging to a reputation, like, perhaps..."

I didn't give you "my definition." I afforded an example as a way to reach an understanding of what we're talking about. Since you're not interested in understanding (you already understand just fine), and you're not interested in admitting that what ginslinger did in the way he did it is tantamount to theft, then your only recourse is to create diversion after diversion.

Now that I've done about a half dozen posts pointing out this same evasive nonsense, I'll just shorthand it from here out.

[Jake Boone]

[...] he'll be a fuckwad. And if not, well, that's for him to prove.

Maybe you want to keep playing the role of the fakir [...]

I'll assume by "fakir" you mean "mind-reader" or "fortune-teller" or "soothsayer" or something like that. It doesn't really require supernatural powers to conclude that Billy will continue to act like a cockhole, when Billy has pretty consistently done exactly that throughout this (nearly) thousand-post train wreck.

But you (or whoever) could call the guy and quit all the speculation. What if you're wrong about him? Does that matter at all to you?

Every day, humans make countless calculations as to whether something will be worth the time and effort required to get it. It would be reasonable to assume that for many people (I suspect Lunchstealer is one of these), the relatively tiny chance that Billy won't be a douchebag on the phone (I base these odds on the entirety of our contact with Billy here, as well as his comments on other blogs as recorded by Google) probably isn't worth the bother of calling him. It's like playing the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery, remember, suck.

Sure, maybe Billy in person is actually a wonderful, scintillating specimen of rational, urbane humanity. But I -- and, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine, others here -- really don't expect that to be the case.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

"'THE WORD 'STEAL' MEANS...'

See my last comment, chubby bitch. It applies to most of you."

I AM RATHER LARGE, WHICH PART OR PARTS WOULD YOU SAY THAT MOST OF YOUR COMMENT APPLIES TO?

ALSO, YOU ARE A DOUCHE.

[Elliot]

Does the truth matter to you?

[Jake Boone]

Aside from the possibility of feeling inadequate, there simply is no reason to not give Billy a call.

You mean aside from this, I imagine?

Also, see my post above. I note Billy isn't offering to pay the long-distance charges, either... hang on a second! Is Billy really encouraging people to use long-distance telephones, and thereby pay excise taxes to the federal government? Yet if NORML paid long-distance taxes (which they probably do, the fiends!), wouldn't he be mad about that?

Oh, well. I'm sure when he returns he'll explain the apparent inconsistency... right after he explains about the Iraqis.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

ELLIOTT, DON'T YOU REALIZE NOW THAT WE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[Kyle Bennett]

Jake, I find it suspicious that you see value in continually talking to and about him here, but claim to find not even the possibility of value in doing so in actual real-time verbal interactive discussion over the safety of a transcontinental phone line.

Is it that you are afraid to do it one on one, without the Peanut Gallery here to egg you on and validate you by claiming your logical blunders are actually rhetorical victories?

See, that's why I think Billy challenged you as he did. Not that he wanted to demonstrate that you lacked physical courage, but that you lacked moral courage. Putting it into concrete, nose on your face terms, made the meaning of what he was proposing too starkly real to ignore. Man up, why dontchya?

I bet Billy would even let you reverse the charges, if there were any.

[Cin]

Jake,

You still pay for long distance? Tsk Tsk, and don't talk taxes. If you lived in my State you'd be screaming loudly at what is and what's about to come down the damn pike....I mean colon.

[Ernest Brown]

"There's a name for that fallacy, using the same word two different ways in an argument, but I can't think of it offhand."

It's the fallacy of equivocation.

[Kyle Bennett]

Thanks, Ernest.

[Jake Boone]

you're not interested in admitting that what ginslinger did in the way he did it is tantamount to theft,

I absolutely deny that what Ginslinger did was "tantamount to theft." Try proposing some arguments of your own, instead of relying on your cocksure pronouncements. The burden of proof is on you, but feel free to warm up by breaking down my quickie argument here:

1. A person owns himself.

2. A person owns his own thoughts, as they are the product of himself.

3. A reputation is made of other people's thoughts.

4. Following from 2, other people's thoughts are owned by those other people, individually.

5. From 3 and 4, a person cannot own his own reputation.

6. From 5, therefore, altering a person's reputation cannot, in itself, be fraud and/or theft perpetrated against that person.

Q.E.D.

Go ahead. Poke some holes. You're smarter than me, right? Should be easy. Go!

[Timothy]

Billy Beck | December 18, 2007, 5:12pm | #

[Cin]

Off the subject here entirely. They really need to speed up the comments box. The lag time is awful. Is anyone else having a problem or is it just me? I type faster than a bullet but this is ridiculous!

[Jake Boone]

Jake, I find it suspicious that you see value in [...] phone line.

As I've already stated, I'll call him... though it won't be tonight, as per Billy's post. But since Lunchstealer isn't here, I thought I'd explain that for "many people" it wouldn't be worth their time.

(Maybe my time isn't worth quite as much as theirs, or maybe I value surreal conversations with bellicose pseudo-anarchocapitalists more than they do.)

[Timothy]

Honestly this is the best thread ever.

[Richard Nikoley]

You know what I find really interesting, and particularly in light of the fact that this thread began in a way the put coercive taxation front and center?

This post of Billy's.

"Let me put it to you this way: the last time I heard, a long time ago, the IRS wanted a hundred and six thousand of my favorite dollars. Think about that."

Not a single comment, remark, reference, or even taunt. Complete blank out.

You all know why, don't you? It's because they have no idea of how to deal with the actual, on-the-ground reality of what they vomit here all day long.

They can deal with theory all day long, and nit pick and divert when things aren't going great. But deal with a real person with a real boot right on the back of his very life, the very time of his life, and: black out. You guys are poseurs and amateurs.

[Timothy]

So you think we'd be cooler if we sicked the feds on Billy? Like could we come smoke behind the bleachers with you guys then?

[Kyle Bennett]

2. A person owns his own thoughts, as they are the product of himself.

3. A reputation is made of other people's thoughts.

Your fallacy is in the second part of #2, continued in #3. Your thoughts, rational ones anyway, are a product of your concepts applied to your perception of reality. A reputation is made of other people's thoughts applied to their perception of you. A reputation is a form of relationship, the both "own" it in the same way you own the relationship with your wife (or girl/boyfriend, whatever). If you convincingly fake reality, cause one person to perceive the other differently, you have damaged that relationship.

Presumably, you have done so to acquire some value you seek. You have acquired that value at the expense of something of value others have created for themselves, essentially stealing from both of them.

[Kyle Bennett]

As I've already stated, I'll call him

Fair enough, I missed that. I apologize.

[Jake Boone]

I won't taunt him on that, because that's awesome, and I salute him for it. In fact, if that's how we'd been introduced, I would have applauded him.

However, since at the time we were embroiled in a discussion about his dickery, it looked like a convenient way to try to plant some faux-heroism. Later, of course, he appears to have been less than honest about his principles re: non-aggression, so I don't currently put a lot of stock in that claim. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't; I have no way of knowing either way (though, at the time, I did Google a few permutations of "William Beck" and "IRS" to see if anything came up, but found nothing in my (admittedly cursory) scanning). If some proof surfaces, I will of course reevaluate the topic. Until then, I'm not going to fall all over myself to kiss his feet.

[Kyle Bennett]

But, Jake, my opinion about why Billy made the challenge stands. You might want to keep the implications of that in mind when you speak to him.

[Jake Boone]

My last was in response to Richard's IRS post. Sorry about omitting a quote for context.

[Billy Beck]

"I note Billy isn't offering to pay the long-distance charges, either..."

Oh, for goddamn's sake already. I didn't figure the thing to be that big a deal and I surely don't want anyone going broke over it. I just got home and it's midnight and I hate telephones anyway so I'm not especially interested to sit around with one in my ear tonight but; since I've been chasing you people around for nearly five days since you hit the gas, it's not going to spoil the fucking election or the alleged "budget" of the State of California if you don't manage to drag your narrow ass to a telephone before sunup to let me know that you can face some facts.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a life?

[Sam The Eagle]

You have all lost your minds. Every single one of you.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I absolutely deny that what Ginslinger did was "tantamount to theft."

Then you're worthy of dismissal. There is already more than enough to go on and what ginslinger did, how he did it, and what he explicitly evaded doing have already been explained by others, including pretty comprehensively by Ron Good. I'm just not interested in explaining things 1, 2, 3 for you.

Here's a bit to chew on, though. Reflect on what is meant when someone says "you stole my life." reflect in how many contexts and degrees it can be applicable. "You stole a piece of me." Then, continue thinking.

Has anyone noticed lately how so many people on the Itertubes readily dismiss metaphor? They go out of their way to evade the actual and real connection to what exists in reality because they'd rather play dictionary.

[Elliot]

Jake: Yet if NORML paid long-distance taxes..., wouldn't he be mad about that?

I seriously doubt it, for the obvious reason that he pays them when he calls people. Why don't you just come right out and ask him? Better yet, why don't you just skip these ridiculous straw man arguments?

And, are you really worried about long distance charges? It has been many years since I paid any additional charges for calling anyone in the United States-- Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam included--from anywhere else in the US. If you don't want to pay the flat fee on your land line to be able to do that (which is well worth it for us, since our family members are all over the place), most decent cell phone plans would get you the same thing.

[Timothy]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a life?

[smacky]

I am w1n.

[Jake Boone]

A reputation is a form of relationship, the both "own" it in the same way you own the relationship with your wife (or girl/boyfriend, whatever).

I suspect I'll reject this premise. For clarification: Does this mean that if my wife (with whom I "own" a relationship) walks out on me, thus destroying said relationship, she has defrauded me out of my half of the value of the relationship? Why/why not?

[Billy Beck]

Ps. -- "See, that's why I think Billy challenged you as he did. Not that he wanted to demonstrate that you lacked physical courage, but that you lacked moral courage. Putting it into concrete, nose on your face terms, made the meaning of what he was proposing too starkly real to ignore. Man up, why dontchya?"

Bennett "wins the thread".

[Cin]

Let me tell you all something. Around April of this year I came across Billy's blog. I read and decided to read the whole month. I was quite interested in what he had to say. Then I began reading everything from the past on there and I mean every little thing. Billy's style of writing and his ability to see things for what they are, as well as write like an outraged human would with emotions intact earned my deepest respect. Then one night one of his posts struck a cord in me and I decided to email him. I fully expected either no response or worse. However this was not the case. Billy was nice and also agreed with my view point. I've emailed him ever since and not once has he been unreasonable or boorish in any way shape or form.
The misconceptions I've seen here are sad. Maybe some of you should hit that blog and do some serious reading and then you'll see him in a different light.
That said, I'm off for some much needed sleep.

[Elliot]

Jake: Go ahead. Poke some holes.

Look here.

[Billy Beck]

"I'm not going to fall all over myself to kiss his feet."

You're making that up. That is not that point and it never has been. And it is, in itself, a righteous object of derision. Stop it.

[Kyle Bennett]

Does this mean that if my wife (with whom I "own" a relationship) walks out on me, thus destroying said relationship, she has defrauded me out of my half of the value of the relationship? Why/why not?

In a moral sense, possibly. If everything was hunky-dory and she just up and left, violating an implicit commitment, then yes. If the relationship was all but destroyed already, through neglect or whatever, then no. Only the two of you could ever really know for sure.

(When I said you own the relationship with your wife, I meant you both own it, not that either one of you has exclusive ownership.)

But in either case, you have no material recourse, aside from withholding your respect and well wishes, since any relationship requires mutual consent, which can be withdrawn unilaterally at any time. A third party destroying the relationship is not simply a matter of withdrawing mutual consent.

[Ron Good]

if NORML paid long-distance taxes (which they probably do, the fiends!), wouldn't he be mad about that?

Do I need to repeat this: this all has nothing to do with businesses paying taxes--it has to do with NORML's suggestions about buying off the Feds with other people'stax dollars.

If NORML wants to pay off the government so they get left alone, they can do it with their own money.

People shouldn't have to pay to get left alone. *That's* the issue and Billy has been spot on from the get-go on that issue throughout this thread. The folks who jumped on his initial statement of "bullshit" missed the fucking point. And they know it. The rest of this is just a smokescreen because they don't want to admit it.

NORMLs position is bullshit.

Jake: and you know it.

[Ron Good]

pseudo-anarchocapitalists

If you mean Billy: **wrong**

Nothing pseudo about it--or him.

[Elliot]

Ron, excellent points.

[Jake Boone]

[...]if you don't manage to drag your narrow ass to a telephone before sunup to let me know that you can face some facts.

Okay, once more time.

I have stated (and this makes the third time) that I will call Billy. I was willing to do so this evening, but Billy said not to do so, as he would be out.

I did point out reasons why your average, rational person would be unlikely to call Billy for any reason, but, once again, I have agreed to call Billy. I'm sure we'll be able to come to some agreement on a time come tomorrow, so we can both be wide awake and ready to chat.

[Kyle Bennett]

I'm off to bed. Can I count on this continuing tomorrow?

[Billy Beck]

Kyle: "If it takes years and cost millions of lives..."

[Ron Good]

For clarification: Does this mean that if my wife (with whom I "own" a relationship) walks out on me, thus destroying said relationship, she has defrauded me out of my half of the value of the relationship? Why/why not?

Jake: you don't need the clarification. You know the answer to this one, too. And you know it (including the side-step).

[Cin]

Good Night Billy.

[Jake Boone]

There you go!

Boy, just think of the cool discussion we could have had if you'd just posted that about 1037 comments sooner!

To that point, when you're being squeezed by two different (yet similar) flavors of thug, I think many Hit & Runners would argue that it's perfectly acceptable to try and play one off against the other. But I agree that there's much to be said on both sides.

Too bad we won't have that great conversation now, because this posting is almost off the bottom of the first page, and all the H&R regulars still here have written off Billy as a giant asshole.

Kinda like I was saying, about the asshole approach actively interfering with winning hearts and minds.

Funny how that works out.

[Jake Boone]

Jake: you don't need the clarification. You know the answer to this one, too. And you know it (including the side-step).

Please stop telling me what I do and do not know, and just provide the clarification.

I don't think it's particularly irrational of me to have some expectation that if I answer assuming one direction or the other, I will immediately be leapt upon for putting words in your mouth.

[Jake Boone]

"If it takes years and cost millions of lives..."

I hope there's some in-joke or private context here.

[Jake Boone]

Nothing pseudo about it--or him.

Aside from that whole nonaggression principle thing.

[Ron Good]

Please stop telling me what I do and do not know, and just provide the clarification

Oh, c'mon, Jake. It's your relationship with your wife. If you wouldn't know, how could anyone else here?

And it's a red herring.

Damn--I just know you know that too.

[lunchstealer]

Well, if one owns one's own reputation, and damage thereto is tantamount to, or even actually is theft, then Master Billy, Boy Genius has been robbed blind by his own damn self. Because his behavior in this thread has been his own worst enemy, and made most of us H&R regulars think that he's a complete jerk. He's arrogant, boastful, and needlessly belligerent.

As for calling him on the phone, that will accomplish nothing that he couldn't accomplish by just changing his tone here. Start by backpedaling a little from some of his most confrontational positions, appologize for some of his most offensive comments and his generally aggressive tone here. He pretty much pissed most H&R folk off within his first few comments by being a dick not only to JsubD who maybe provoked it, but then to Kwix, who certainly didn't. He came out swinging, showed no respect to anyone who tried to engage him, and was generally making a pain of himself.

Maybe he was just having a really bad day and was surlier than he would have preferred, or maybe he just didn't mean to be as abrasive as he ended up sounding. But to have kept this up for 1000 comments over something like 5 days, that just doesn't show someone who has restraint or a sense of proportion.

In these days of caller ID, if I were to call him, there'd be nothing to prevent him going into phone harassment mode. Despite his friends assurances that no he's a great guy and we'd all like him if we just gave him a chance, I am not about to take that kind of risk. There is probably a way that I could mask my phone number to call him, but I just don't care enough to try.

That you guys have read this thread, and apparently don't see why we're being so hard on him doesn't speak well for you either.

Any one or all of you might be very interesting to talk to, but in the context of defending this guy's asinine behavior here, we're never going to find out, because we're never going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You've all got a strong connotation with Billy, who's just been a dick, so the first filter we're going to use when reading your posts is "what's this dick going on about now." The only way around that is to A - Make it very clear that you are distancing yourself from previous dickdom, and B - Make some effort to be very cautious in avoiding things that can be interpreted as insulting. Because insults we expect.

Or just stay pissed at us.

[Ron Good]

including that whole nonaggression principle thing.

In spades.

[Jake Boone]

In spades.

Call me, punk. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you my number. We'll work it out: we'll get together, and you'll call me a liar, and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot.

Yeah.

[Ron Good]

Start by backpedaling a little from some of his most confrontational positions, appologize for some of his most offensive comments and his generally aggressive tone here

He's done nothing wrong here.

The horror is: you're not joking.

[Jake Boone]

He's done nothing wrong here.

He's within his rights here, certainly. But "rights" and "right" aren't always the same thing.

I hope you can agree with that last sentence, at least, even if you think it doesn't apply to Billy.

[Isaac Bartram]

I'll do my part.

Billy Beck is an ass.

[Isaac Bartram]

A total ass.

[Billy Beck]

"I hope there's some in-joke or private context here."

It's a paraphrase from "Animal House".

What the fuckin' fuck is wrong with you? Man, for a crowd so comfy in the bosom of the state, you people are terrorized.

[Richard Nikoley]

Call me, punk. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you my number. We'll work it out: we'll get together, and you'll call me a liar, and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot.

"Yeah"

You ought to try being honest enough to play devil's advocate with yourself on this. Start by making a mental list of _speech_ that's a direct or tantamount too an initiation of force.

And also take time to consider that the cleverest of thieves will _always_ hide behind the "what, I didn't do anything" ploy when they get called on it by someone dead serious and not about to allow anyone to take something from them involuntarily or unearned, and that includes more than concrete material things.

Most people don't stop to realize it, but they allow themselves to be lied to and stolen from in small ways every single day. That's fine; you all have you own level of outrage, as Billy has said a time or two, but that doesn't mean you get to decide what level of outrage others will abide.

I'm far more tolerant than he of those who gain unearned values at my expense (coerced, when it comes to the state) every day, and it would never occur to him to ever criticize me for it. By the same token, in no way is he a fool because he just won't play along.

[Jake Boone]

What the fuckin' fuck is wrong with you? Man, for a crowd so comfy in the bosom of the state, you people are terrorized.

Oh, come on. I was just trying to determine whether this was an in-joke or bombastic puffery. Do you really think people sit around quaking in fear because some Internet dickhead threatens to pop 'em one? Go outside your compound. Meet some people. Learn about the way non-damaged humans interact.

[lunchstealer]

Ron Good | December 19, 2007, 12:21am | #
if NORML paid long-distance taxes (which they probably do, the fiends!), wouldn't he be mad about that?

Do I need to repeat this: this all has nothing to do with businesses paying taxes--it has to do with NORML's suggestions about buying off the Feds with other people'stax dollars.

If NORML wants to pay off the government so they get left alone, they can do it with their own money.

People shouldn't have to pay to get left alone. *That's* the issue and Billy has been spot on from the get-go on that issue throughout this thread. The folks who jumped on his initial statement of "bullshit" missed the fucking point. And they know it. The rest of this is just a smokescreen because they don't want to admit it.

NORMLs position is bullshit.

Jake: and you know it.

OK, I've struck through the parts aimed at taking a dig at Jake, and left the parts that just elucidate your position.

If Billy had posted the above post when Kwix had asked him what he was on about, Kwix probably would have said something along the lines of "Ah, gotcha." And that would've been that. But Billy chose instead to post this:

"And which "bullshit" would that be?"

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

And things went downhill from there. He proceeded on to the following:

Call me, punk. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you my number. We'll work it out: we'll get together, and you'll call me a liar, and I'll break your fucking nose, right on the spot.

This right here is still and always going to be, to us, a clear refutation of any interest in valid argument. If his expression of his ideas were strong, he'd never have gotten to that point. But almost every post is spent insisting that he's ALREADY made his ideas clear, as if his interpretation of his comments is the only valid interpretation. But most have been sufficiently cryptic that you could easily come up with an interpretation that was logically invalid. So by being obtuse, he's left us feeling like he's continually overstating his position.

It takes an incredibly good writer to make his ideas clear to a hostile crowd. He's made us hostile, and then intentionally written one-liner responses where an indepth response would have ended the conversation with agreement. It's basic rhetorical skill that he lacks, that keeps his ideas obscured.

[Richard Nikoley]

"an ass"

Isn't it amazing what it takes to get you all to come the the realization that he was precisely right all along:

"Shorter NORML: 'Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action.'"

And right about another thing, too, only grossly understated when you consider the full range of implications:

"Fucking disgusting."

Had anyone even said something like "that's true, but," this whole thing would have gone down a lot differently.

Instead, you'll all jump to the attack in dozens of posts in order to evade and blank out the absolute true reality of the matter, along with the characterization of cheerleading it; and then when you -- oh shit! -- realize he was cocise and dead on, you'll not write a dozen posts, but a thousand in order to first taunt him into upping the ante, and when he does, that'll become the focus.

All so you can avoid a simple little truth of a matter.

What you all ought to be focussed on is that someone needs so be such "an ass" for so long until you finally start getting the picture.

[Jake Boone]

What you all ought to be focussed on is that someone needs so be such "an ass" for so long until you finally start getting the picture.

Or, contrariwise, not be such an ass and watch us all get the point straight away.

As was, I believe, suggested early on.

[Richard Nikoley]

...And another thing. If you ever saw him take on a bunch of commies on a leftie blog you'd have seen an entirely different approach from the outset.

Here, he was dealing with people laying claim to the banner of REASON, so he held you to a far higher -- indeed the ultimate -- standard. He knew from second one that he was dealing with people clearly undeserving of that banner.

[Jake Boone]

Isn't it amazing what it takes to get you all to come the the realization that he was precisely right all along:

Show of hands for who, precisely, has come to that "realization"? I, for one, said "there's much to be said on both sides," not "Billy was precisely right all along."

[lunchstealer]

For my part, I was never interested in his original statement. It was coarse and unfocused (concise is only concise if it's also clear, which it wasn't) but I suspected his basic meaning fairly quickly, and even had it confirmed fairly quickly. I don't personally agree with his point 100%, but I'm not unsympathetic, and would have been willing to discuss it further under different circumstances.

Had anyone even said something like "that's true, but," this whole thing would have gone down a lot differently.

And had he at any point dropped the stance of "You KNOW what I'm saying! Why don't you just ADMIT that I'm right?" And just made a calm, respectful statement of his position, a lot of H&R folks probably would have weighed his ideas. But he never chose that path, so here we are. I could give a fuck what his stance on NORML is at this point, because I'm only interested in the fact that he can't not be a dick.

[lunchstealer]

I'll state this clearly as I can. Billy Beck marginalized his own case by intentionally antagonizing those who would otherwise have been receptive to his ideas. He has no one but himself to blame. People even threw him olive branches and tried to help him out (Episiarch early on) but he made no use of it. Notice that Episiarch didn't stick around to help him out.

As it is, I am unwilling to discuss it further with him. I don't care what his views are any more. He's just being a dick.

[lunchstealer]

One important way that Billy was wrong from the get-go:

"And we'll cut you in on a piece of the action"

In this case, at least no one was offering the Feds a piece of the action. They were simply saying to the feds, "cut it out, you're ruining our action!"

NORML has on other occasions attempted to placate the feds by suggesting taxation of marijuana procedes, but that was not the case here.

[Ron Good]

I'll state this clearly as I can. Billy Beck marginalized his own case by intentionally antagonizing those who would otherwise have been receptive to his ideas. He has no one but himself to blame

Bullshit.

[lunchstealer]

Bullshit that he antagonized people who'd otherwise have supported him, or bullshit that he's to blame for it?

[lunchstealer]

Or was it bullshit that I stated that as clearly as I could. How could I have been clearer?

[lunchstealer]

Or are you arguing that his antagonism could have been unintentional?

See, this is one of the prime areas in which you guys have lost points. You just say "bullshit" when there are several possible kinds of bullshit you could be calling. It gets tiresome to try and figure out your positions from all the one-word and one-sentence responses that could be much clearer with just a little elucidation.

[DDS]

last post?

[Ron Good]

But almost every post is spent insisting that he's ALREADY made his ideas clear, as if his interpretation of his comments is the only valid interpretation. But most have been sufficiently cryptic that you could easily come up with an interpretation that was logically invalid. So by being obtuse, he's left us feeling like he's continually overstating his position.

Billy never told anyone he'd made his ideas clear. He said he'd made his opinion clear and and that the "why" of his opinion was right there in front of anyone who made an effort to look.

And it was.

Not only do folks expect Billy to do their hard work for them, they get ticked when he doesn't respond politely enough. And he wasn't obtuse once.

[Ron Good]

"And we'll cut you in on a piece of the action"

Oh, right. That's the allegedly inexact statement that confused you all so much the point became invisible.

Laughable.

[Elliot]

lunch: This right here is still and always going to be, to us, a clear refutation of any interest in valid argument.

Funny that you didn't point to the preceding comment as a clear refutation of Ginslinger's interest in a valid argument.

If his expression of his ideas were strong, he'd never have gotten to that point.

The strengths of his arguments had nothing to do with the asshole calling him a liar without cause.

[lunchstealer]

they get ticked when he doesn't respond politely enough.

Uhh, yeah. You might have noticed this about humans. They tend to get ticked off if you're a dick to them. Seems like this could've been predicted.

[lunchstealer]

Ron - it wasn't inexact. It was incorrect.

[Ron Good]

But almost every post is spent insisting that he's ALREADY made his ideas clear, as if his interpretation of his comments is the only valid interpretation. But most have been sufficiently cryptic that you could easily come up with an interpretation that was logically invalid. So by being obtuse, he's left us feeling like he's continually overstating his position.

The above part of my December 19, 2007, 2:22am post was a quote. I know preview is my friend but the lag...the lag...

G'nite.

[Ellliot]

lunch: Or, contrariwise, not be such an ass and watch us all get the point straight away.

I don't believe that for one second. I've seen a number of participants going out of their way not to get the point.

[Mike S.]

I've seen a number of participants who are incapable of getting the point. I attribute this to four generations of stupid people breeding programs.

Man, when the fiat cork blows out of this thing, they're going to pile up like mayflies under the streetlights everywhere.

[Ayn_Randian]

Man, when the fiat cork blows out of this thing, they're going to pile up like mayflies under the streetlights everywhere.

Try not to blow your load over it, you violent, hateful fuck.

I attribute this to four generations of stupid people breeding programs.

Yeah, yeah, kids these days amirite? (thanks dhex)

[Ayn_Randian]

I'd like to point out a contradiction here:

Mike, on one hand, you say I'm a dirty dirty second-hander because I quote from other people's ideas, thereby indicating I have no thoughts of my own (i.e. my quotes from Robert Bidinotto and Diana Hsieh.

One the other hand, you're saying the way to learn is for someone to present an idea and for the other to go "Oh, yeah, that makes sense".

Did it ever enter your hateful little mind that I learned from the people I quoted, and I used their ideas because I thought "oh yeah, what Bidinotto is saying makes sense here. Let me demonstrate that I endorse his ideas, which make sense to me, by quoting him"?

Like Jake Boone said, ideas don't spring fully-formed, Athena-like, from an individual's head.

Serious question: Do any of the folks here who advocate anarcho-capitalism think that that system would spring up tomorrow if government were removed today? Or do you think that a gradual and progressive rollback would be the way to achieve it?

[Ron Good]

"And we'll cut you in on a piece of the action"

What part of "there's money being made and you can have more of it, or at least stop losing so much, if you leave us alone." is incorrect when it refers to NORML's position? In other words, what part isn't just like what Billy said? NORML is just trading at the trough.

[Ugly stepsister]

Just looked at this thread after it broke records. The starting "debate" between J sub D and Billy Beck is proof of why you should never argue with morons on the internet: first they drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience. (I wish I knew who first said that, as I'm quoting someone, but no idea who.) Keep that in mind anyone who wants to argue with the likes of Billy Beck: you cannot win...

[Ayn_Randian]

Well, folks, it's been a pleasant (relatively speaking) afternoon in Baghdad. Let's see if we can even reach Iraq's level of peacefulness today, shall we?

Actually, fuck that?I'll start: Mike, I have yet to see you distance yourself from calls for my death. The justification for my death seems to be that I (and I alone) have somehow managed to place a "We the People" boot on your neck. Tell me again how I am responsible for the State's oppression of you?

Sounds to me like you're endorsing the notion of collective guilt, in that my failure to repudiate the State makes me some kind of war criminal or something. Using that logic, we would have been in the moral right to have turned Germany into glass and categorically slaughtered its people for their "support" of WWII. (oh yah?Godwin overdrive!)

Your (lack of) thoughts, Mikey-poo?

[Kyle Bennett]

Ugly,

I held out hope for just a minute that you were pointing out Billy's mistake. Ahh... well.

To those of you offering some variation of "If he'd only said so sooner", and implying that his argument would have been more effective, you're wrong.

First, that argument was made 1000+ comments ago, to anyone able to grasp the full context. To those of you who couldn't, you wouldn't have learned anything from it no matter how much time he spent walking you through it by baby steps. Because his point, as Rich described, is not about the concrete of what NORML is doing, but about the abstraction of what a moral gross failing it is. And what a gross moral failure you've committed by taking it seriously - more so because you, of all people, should know better.

That you don't, and never will, is something those of us who do understand the full context are just starting to grasp the implications of.

You weren't going to be open to that argument while you remained in your narrow little context of politics. The only way to reach you was to try to break you out of that context - "break" being the operative word.

Though I doubt that effort was successful, it was a good exercise for those of us who have already broken out of it, to see what we've known in the abstract made concrete.

Most of you still won't come close to getting it. Maybe one or two of you will, eventually. But for the rest, this has shown that it's you're world. You can keep it and ride it all the way to hell under the delusion that you're "making a difference". It won't be long now.

[Elliot]

Ugly: Keep that in mind anyone who wants to argue with the likes of Billy Beck: you cannot win...

No, that isn't strictly true. But you certainly can't win if you don't have a grasp of the fundamentals (like an appreciation for context, or basic familiarity with background material) and you can't identify the principles involved in an issue. If you think that being nice is more important than being correct, or that being popular is of any value, he'll eat you for breakfast.

Tenacity in the pursuit of truth is no vice.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"Is anyone else having a problem or is it just me?"

OF COURSE IT IS JUST YOU.

YOU ROUGH AND TUMBLE COWBOY, YOU. YOU GUYS ARE A REAL SCREAM.

AND ELLIOT IS SUPPOSED TO PHONE E.T., NATCH.

[Cin]

Minion,
Your insufferable. Where is your brain? This is not the subject anylonger. Oh, Good Morning to you too! Try sticking to the subject matter at hand.

[Cin]

Minion,
I was just going to email you. Now I see your problem. Your not worth the trouble.

[Jake Boone]

First, that argument was made 1000+ comments ago, to anyone able to grasp the full context.

So the fact that the great majority of us (i.e. most H&R folks, who've never so much as heard of the Great Billy Beck and His Glorious Usenet Struggle for Freedom) don't have that context means... he wasn't talking to us? So on H&R, he said stuff that wasn't for the consumption of the H&R audience. And we've committed a "gross moral fault" by not immediately figuring it out a priori. Gotcha.

I'm starting to think you believe we're all mindreading mules, trivially able to pluck hidden "contexts" out of Billy's head, but just too damn stubborn to admit it.

[lunchstealer]

You weren't going to be open to that argument while you remained in your narrow little context of politics. The only way to reach you was to try to break you out of that context - "break" being the operative word.

So am I interpreting you correctly by saying this:

"Those who understand the context of Billy's stance on taxes - that paying taxes is immoral because it perpetuates theft by the state - would have understood Billy's original post immediately. Those who don't already share that view will not understand that view until Billy gets them so angry at him that their minds 'break' and then they'll understand. And that without that breaking, they will never respond to a sensible argument?"

Is that the crux of your position?

So you're saying that Billy's antagonism to everyone in this thread was not only intentional, but necessary?

[Andrew]

So you're saying that Billy's antagonism to everyone in this thread was not only intentional, but necessary?

Apparently. It's like philosophizing with a hammer, but without the philosophy.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Richard Nokoley wrote:

You all know why, don't you? It's because they have no idea of how to deal with the actual, on-the-ground reality of what they vomit here all day long.

For example, dhex is the kind of guy who would walk into my house and tell me that instead of buying new carpet, a rainwater collection system, or investing in my business, I must instead spend that money on prescription drugs for someone else's child. And if I don't, he will see me locked in a cage.

Except that dhex does not have the nerve to do that himself. Instead, expresses his opinion about my life's priorities anonymously and from a safe distance, over the internet and in a voting booth.

His surgically clean method of commandeering my life does not mitigate his guilt, it merely adds cowardice to his long list of stinking vices, making it smell like week-old crotch cheese.

[GinSlinger]

Dear Objectivist (or whatever the hell you are),

Look through this thread and try to determine who the one voice was that saught precision in language. Hint: It wasn't Billy, or Kenny, or any of the rest of ya'll.

The OED has spoken:

dismiss, v. SECOND EDITION 1989
1. a. trans. To send away in various directions, disperse, dissolve (a gathering of people, etc.); to disband (an army, etc.).

1582 N.T. (Rhem.) Acts xix. 41 He dismissed the assemblie. 1596 SHAKES. Merch. V. IV. i. 104, I may dismisse this Court. 1653 H. COGAN tr. Pinto's Trav. vi. 16 Relying on this Treaty of Peace he dismist his Army. 1673 RAY Journ. Low C. Venice 181 After this..the Council is dismist. 1784 COWPER Tiroc. 624 Dismiss their cares when they dismiss their flock. 1819 SHELLEY Cenci I. iii. 93 For God's sake Let me dismiss the guests!
b. intr. (for refl.) To disperse from ordered assembly; to break ranks by word of command.

1809 A. ADAM in Scott Fam. Lett. (1894) I. 155 He..added faintly, 'But it grows dark, very dark, the boys may dismiss'. 1837 CARLYLE Fr. Rev. VII. ix. (1872) I. 240 Finally the National Assembly is harangued..and dismisses for this night. 1859 GEN. P. THOMPSON Audi Alt. II. xcviii. 86 A ministry, which..scatters the boasted counsellors, like a battalion on the word 'Dis-miss'.
2. a. trans. To send away (a person); to give permission to go; to bid depart.

1548 HALL Chron., Edw. IV (an. 10) 214b, So with fayre wordes..he dismissed the messengers. 1593 SHAKES. 3 Hen. VI, III. ii. 78 Please you dismisse me, eyther with I, or no. 1667 MILTON P.L., VII. 108 We can..dismiss thee ere the Morning shine. 1725 DE FOE Voy. round World (1840) 50 To dismiss my visitor. 1847 TENNYSON Princ. IV. 341 Your oath is broken: we dismiss you: go.
b. transf. To send forth (a thing); to let go; to give issue or egress to.

1601 SHAKES. Jul. C. I. iii. 97 Life being wearie of these worldly Barres, Neuer lacks power to dismisse it selfe. 1670 COTTON Espernon I. III. 116 In a moment he vomited out a life, that ought not to have been dismist, till after the horror of a thousand torments. 1768 J. HAWKESWORTH tr. T?l?maque xv. (1784) 144/2 As a slinger whirls a stone that he would dismiss with all his strength. 1854 OWEN in Circ. Sc. (c 1865) II. 65/2 They dismiss the great optic nerves by a notch.
3. a. To send away or remove from office, employment, or position; to discharge, discard, expel. Const. from, of, and double obj.

c1477 CAXTON Jason 80 Zethephius dismissed of his office..attemprid his corage..so well..that [etc.]. 1481 in Eng. Gilds (1870) 313 To be thysmyste from the forsayde fraternyte. 1579 LYLY Euphues (Arb.) 194, I meane shortly to sue to the Empresse to be dismissed of the court. 1692 LUTTRELL Brief Rel. (1857) II. 369 Yesterday Sir John Lowther was dismist the treasury. a1700 DRYDEN To Ld. Clifford (L.), He soon dismiss'd himself from state affairs. 1719 DE FOE Crusoe (1840) II. iv. 72 They dismissed them the society. 1874 GREEN Short Hist. viii. ?2. 477 The King dismissed those of his ministers who still opposed a Spanish policy.
b. To discharge from service (a hired vehicle, etc.).

1600 E. BLOUNT tr. Conestaggio 299 Yet did they not dismisse their hired ships. 1836 MARRYAT Japhet lxxi. 137, I dismissed the coach.
c. Cricket. To put (a batsman or side) out (usu. for a score).

1875 Field 22 May 501 Ten runs later Mr Longman was dismissed, and sundry changes were made in the bowling. 1892 Times 22 July 7 Afterwards Gunn saw the rest of his side dismissed, and took out his bat for a faultless 98. 1912 A. BRAZIL New Girl at St. Chad's vii. III The St. Hilary side was dismissed for sixty-seven. 1933 D. L. SAYERS Murder must Advertise xviii. 306 The Brotherhoods were dismissed for 155, and the Pym Eleven gathered themselves together from the four corners of the field.
4. To deprive or disappoint of or from some advantage. Cf. 10a. Obs.

c1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon xx. 445 He was dysmyssed of his purpose. 1590 WEBBE Trav. (Arb.) 22 The Turke..might, if he would, dismisse them cleane from hauing any water at all. 1632 LITHGOW Trav. III. 104 The Galleys..durst not enter the harbour..The Florentines being dismissed of their Galleys, grew discouraged.
5. a. To release or discharge from confinement.
[Dysmysse in Halliwell's ed. of Coventry Myst. (1841) 315 is an alteration of the MS. dymysse.]

1651 N. BACON Disc. Govt. Eng. II. lxvi. 227 Persons taken and imprisoned upon excommunication are ordinarily dismist without satisfaction to the Prelate. 1709 STRYPE Ann. Ref. I. i. 38 So to dismiss them, and set them at liberty. 1783 J. C. SMYTH in Med. Commun. I 146 She..was dismissed the hospital, perfectly cured.
b. transf. and fig.

1591 SYLVESTER Du Bartas I. i. (1641) 7/2 Blushing Aurora had yet scarce dismist Mount Libanus from the Nights gloomy Mist. 1839 DE QUINCEY Recoll. Lakes Wks. 1862 II. 29 Sometimes a fall from the summit of awful precipices has dismissed them from the anguish of perplexity..by dismissing them at once from life.
6. To discard, reject; esp. (as Latin dmittre) to put away, repudiate (a wife). Also absol.

1610 SHAKES. Temp. IV. i. 67 Broome-groues; Whose shadow the dismissed Batchelor loues. 1614 BP. HALL Recoll. Treat. 473 Whether the wronged husband..should retaine, or dismisse; dismissing, whether he may marry. 1625 BURGES Pers. Tithes 34 God..hath dismissed Leui, and repealed that Law of Tithes. 1649 BP. HALL Cases Consc. 393 Breach of wedlock..for which only had they dismissed their wives. 1834 S. GOBAT Abyssinia 346 When, therefore, a man has dismissed his third wife.
7. To put away, lay aside, divest oneself of, get rid of. (Now rare with regard to things material.)

1675 HOBBES Odyssey (1677) 162 [Gods] can their form dismiss, And, when they will, put on a new disguise. 1683 A. BEHN Young King V. i. 53 Dismiss her fetters, and if she please Let her have Garments suitable to her sex. a1700 DRYDEN Ovid's Met. I. (R.) The crafty God His wings dismiss'd, but still retain'd his rod. 1772 JOHNSON Lett. to Mrs. Thrale 9 Nov., This will soon dismiss all incumbrances; and when no interest is paid, you will begin annually to lay up. 1851 RUSKIN Stones Ven. (1874) I. xxviii. 325 That the architrave shall entirely dismiss its three meagre lines.
8. a. To put away from the mind, leave out of consideration, cease to entertain (ideas, emotions, etc.).

1592 SHAKES. Ven. & Ad. 425 Dismiss your vows, your feigned tears. 1667 MILTON P.L. II. 282 Dismissing quite All thoughts of Warr. 1697 DRYDEN Virg. Past. vii. 10 He, smiling, said, Dismiss your Fear. 1784 COWPER Task VI. 442 Man may dismiss compassion from his heart, But God will never. 1884 Manch. Exam. 17 June 5/1 We may dismiss any apprehension that the political affairs of Egypt will be taken in charge.
b. To allow to pass out of mind; to forgive; to forgo. Obs.

1603 SHAKES. Meas. for M. II. ii. 102 Those..which a dismis'd offence would after gaule. 1786 WESLEY Wks. (1872) IV. 345 The Elders of his Church..would dismiss my promise.
9. To pass from the consideration or the literary treatment of (a subject), to have done with, bring to an end; hence to treat of summarily.

1698 FRYER Acc. E. Ind. & P. 47 Before we dismiss this Discourse, it may be noted [etc.]. 1709 BERKELEY Th. Vision ?40 Before we dismiss this subject. 1711 ADDISON Spect. No. 110 7, I shall dismiss this Paper with a Story out of Josephus. 1873 TRISTRAM Moab v 70 Both De Saulcy and Lynch have dismissed Kerak very shortly.
10. Law. a. refl. (with of or inf.) To relieve or free oneself from (a legal burden); to deprive or exclude oneself from (a legal advantage). Obs.

1562 in Strype Ann. Ref. I. xxxi. 356 Thereby to be dismissed of all action of debt or trespass. 1574 tr. Littleton's Tenures 53b, Shee hathe utterlye dismissed her selfe to have anye parte of the tenementes. a1626 BACON Max. & Uses Com. Law xvii. (1636) 64 The Court may dismisse themselves of discussing the matter by examination. 1642 PERKINS Prof. Bk. v. ?448. 193 The husband doth presently dismisse himselfe of the possession.
b. To send out of court, refuse further hearing to, reject (a claim or action).

1607 SHAKES. Cor. II. i. 85 You..dismisse the Controuersie bleeding. 1713 SWIFT Cadenus & Vanessa Wks. 1755 III. II. 5 Therefore he humbly would insist, The bill might be with costs dismist. 1818 CRUISE Digest (ed. 2) VI. 352 The appeal should be dismissed and the decree affirmed. 1891 Law Times XCII. 93/2 The plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.
Hence dismissed (dsmst) ppl. a., dismissing vbl. n.

1603-10 [see 8b, 6, above]. 1611 COTGR., Manumission, a manumission, or dismissing. 1627 [see DISMISSION 2b]. 1824 L. MURRAY Eng. Gram. (ed. 5) I. 266 'What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily?'

Clearly, if you bother to click on my link provided, the philosophical community has not dismissed metaphysics. It may not address it in the way that Billy and his Beckshirts wish, but that does not mean they have dismissed the subject. To say otherwise is a lie. I can not defraud a bankrupt man.

[Kyle Bennett]

Jake,

the great majority of us (i.e. most H&R folks, who've never so much as heard of the Great Billy Beck and His Glorious Usenet Struggle for Freedom) don't have that context

The context has been available to you all along, it has nothing to do with Billy.

And we've committed a "gross moral fault" by not immediately figuring it out a priori.

If by "a priori" you mean "before Billy pointed it out to you", yes, though you could have convinced me it was an honest mistake if you'd reacted differently.

lunch:

"Those who understand the context of Billy's stance on taxes - that paying taxes is immoral because it perpetuates theft by the state

That's still not the context, but I didn't expect you'd get it even now.

- would have understood Billy's original post immediately. Those who don't already share that view will not understand that view until Billy gets them so angry at him that their minds 'break' and then they'll understand. And that without that breaking, they will never respond to a sensible argument?"

Is that the crux of your position?

So you're saying that Billy's antagonism to everyone in this thread was not only intentional, but necessary?

In the context of that purpose, yes, it was necessary (the anger is only a predictable side-effect), though obviously not sufficient. And it wasn't your mind that needed to break, it was the conceptual cul-de-sac your mind is circling in.

[Kyle Bennett]

Well, GizzSlinger, you've certainly cemented your reputation with that.

[Andrew]

In the context of that purpose, yes, it was necessary (the anger is only a predictable side-effect), though obviously not sufficient. And it wasn't your mind that needed to break, it was the conceptual cul-de-sac your mind is circling in.

Wait, don't tell me, I know this one... um... oh, oh, Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now! Good one!

[GinSlinger]

Wow, Kyle, where's the vitrol? No counter-"argument"? So, you're admitting that it was Billy, et al. that committed fraud? Thanks for the complement.

[Kyle Bennett]

where's the vitrol?

Held in reserve for those who might possibly be worth of it. It was wasted on you earlier.

[Jennifer]

Oh, magnificence. I think my favorite part was where the Disciples explained that the Master is pissing people off on purpose, because only after our minds have been broken with anger can they be rebuilt into the proper Billyous (pun intentional) state.

It's like the bastard gay-love child of Anarchist Jesus and a drill sergeant.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"Cin | December 19, 2007, 9:18am | #
Minion,
I was just going to email you. Now I see your problem. Your not worth the trouble."

KORREKT!!! DEFINITELY NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE.

SINCE I AM WEARING SOCKS, YOU CERTAINLY CANNOT SEE MY PROBLEM, HOWEVER.

BUT IT SURE IS FUN RILING YOU UP. YOU PASTEL, COWBOY, ROBERT SMITH LOOK-ALIKE.

[GinSlinger]

JSTOR Title Search-Subject Philosophy:

"metaphysics:" 784
"ethics:" 1949
"politics:" 700
"logic:" 3541
"epistemology:" 367
"kool-aid:" 0 Though I suspect there might be one in the works about this, possible subtitled: "Billy Beck and his kool-aid drinking disciples."

So, metaphysics is title checked more than politics and epistemology, has the community "dissmisal"ed these topics as well?

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"Your insufferable"

OHNOES!!!! "CIN" OHNOES. MISSING WORD ALERT!!!

MY INSUFFERABLE WHAT? IS THAT ANOTHER WAY OF DEMONSTRATING YOUR SUPERIOR TYPING ABILITY? "ALOT" OR IS IT A_____________________LOT? "YOUR"

*PONDERS*

DO YOU MEAN "YOU'RE"?

IT'S IMPORTANT - WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR COMMUNICATION? IT CONSISTS OF MADE-UP OR MISSING WORDS OR TYPING MISTAKES.

WE JUST DON'T TALK ANYMORE.

*SOBS*

[Timothy]

If he's a GizzSlinger, doesn't that make you the excited facial recipient Kyle? I had no idea you're so kinky, though I guess it shouldn't surprise me overmuch.

[Cin]

Minion, You don't rile me up. Now if you worked for me then that would be a different situation. However you would never make it past the first interview. I will not be responding to you after this.

[lunchstealer]

That's still not the context, but I didn't expect you'd get it even now.

Well this just cements my point that you are all really really bad at getting your point across. At this point you've spent so much time REFUSING to elucidate your point, that I could give a fuck what you mean. You guys are so busy patting yourselves on the back that you 'know' the 'truth' that you aren't willing to explain what that truth is. We have no basis for even discussing things, because we don't share a common language. You won't define your terms, you won't expand upon your arguments. You just keep keep shouting "Purple" as if that's somehow an indefatigable argument.

And in a way it is.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THAT'S JUST SOOOOOO NICE to know (gasp! not allkaps!!).

WHAT INDUSTRY ARE YOU IN?

[dhex]

Look, I'm not interested. If you can't grasp the essential meaning (even _if_ I wasn't using some definitions precisely, you all are admitting that you're clueless to metaphor, simile, analogy) of what it means to "steal someone's integrity," then I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're more interested in finding ways to nit pick and divert than to come to any level of honest understanding or agreement.

of course you're not interested in explaining how insulting someone via the internet hurts their reputation, because you know damn well it doesn't. ok, maybe i'm projecting a bit here and hoping you know damn well it doesn't, in which case i am more than happy to overestimate you.

patrick:

[quote]For example, dhex is the kind of guy who would walk into my house and tell me that instead of buying new carpet, a rainwater collection system, or investing in my business, I must instead spend that money on prescription drugs for someone else's child. And if I don't, he will see me locked in a cage.

Except that dhex does not have the nerve to do that himself. Instead, expresses his opinion about my life's priorities anonymously and from a safe distance, over the internet and in a voting booth.

His surgically clean method of commandeering my life does not mitigate his guilt, it merely adds cowardice to his long list of stinking vices, making it smell like week-old crotch cheese.[/quote]

patrick:

now, i was making fun of you earlier, because you got all THEY'RE TAKINGS MY PRECIOUSSSSS on me seemingly out of context, or because you're used to people being shocked that you'd want to hold onto what is yours. hell, in another context instead of saying "you're a fuckhole addicted to indignation" i would just post buddhist sutras about how ownership is impossible, imaginary, and unreal.

now, if you want to pretend i'm a socialist, that's ok. i can play along, because i'm really here to help you.

you're selfish!
you're mean!
i will take your money and give it to the poor! i will take your money and give it to everyone!
you don't own yourself!
you own nothing!
property is immoral!
capitalist roader!
materialist scum!

does it make you feel better to be such a rebel?

i hope it does. i can understand the beauty of feeling hated - it's not only personal attention, it is a very intense attention (probably second only to falling in love) and it's what makes trolling a lot of fun in some contexts. it's a pure kind of beauty, because it gives you a clear black-and-white path to follow.

just don't forget: a disciple is an asshole in search of a human to attach itself to.

have you found yours yet?

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

CIN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT NOT RESPONDING TO THE MINION OF URKOBOLD MAY CAUSE THE URKOBOLD TO BE SUMMONED. I HAVE NOT SEEN COUSIN URKOBOLD IN SOME TIME, BUT OF COURSE I'VE BEEN BUSY PECKING OUT LIVERS AT THE BEHEST OF ZEUS FOR SOME TIME NOW. I DO BELIEVE I HEAR THE KING OF OLYMPUS CALLING, AND CIN YOUR LIVER IS NEXT. IF I CAN USE SOME OF THAT BASTARD PROMETHEUS' STOLEN FIRE I'LL COOK IT UP WITH SOME NICE ONIONS AND WHATNOT, IT'LL BE LIKE DINNER IN THE MIDWEST. IF NOT, WELL, RAW AGAIN, WHICH I'M TIRED OF AFTER ALL THESE MILLENIA BUT I MUST DO AS ZEUS COMMANDS!

[dhex]

YOU PASTEL, COWBOY, ROBERT SMITH LOOK-ALIKE.

ok ok hold on hold on now we're getting crazy.

Man, when the fiat cork blows out of this thing, they're going to pile up like mayflies under the streetlights everywhere.

ahh, the eschaton. that's something nearly every ideology can agree upon. oh we're all such special snowflakes that not only will the world "end" because we're so very, very special, but it will happen before our very eyes so we can bask in the glory of its cleansing fire.

related:
a few weeks ago at a surprise birthday party, i apparently told someone - i do not remember this, mind you - that ayn rand was "blavatsky with a prince valiant haircut."

man, i think that was an off-hand joke, but it now seems to be 100% true. something about will to power type stuff that attracts people with neither will nor power.

[MoU]

Billy and his Gang are training to make all your metaphysics are belong to them.

[Ayn_Randian]

Because his point, as Rich described, is not about the concrete of what NORML is doing, but about the abstraction of what a moral gross failing it is. And what a gross moral failure you've committed by taking it seriously - more so because you, of all people, should know better.

Who said that they took the argument seriously? For one, Reason just reported on the story. Secondly, since it could be argued that a gradual and progressive rollback of government is preferable to toppling the entire institution, arguments that reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government is a step in the right direction.

I know, I know: "Objectivst heresy! You're putting pragmatic considerations over principle! You're claiming that a roll back of the state is a good thing but you haven't considered why, how or for whom." We can't just advocate for the roll back of the state as if that is an end unto itself."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard all before. Try on Robert Bidinotto's (I KNOW YOU THINK I AM A SECOND-HANDER MIKE SHUT UP ALREADY!) Anatomy of Cooperation and perhaps you'll understand where I am coming from. The bottom line up front (BLUF) is that it is OK to work with individuals who are not necessarily Objectivists, but whose goals are congruent with Objectivists.

[T]he fear of acting inconsistently is not the same thing as the consistent pursuit of one's values. But those motivated by that fear tend to replace the persistent, consistent pursuit of their personal values with a crabbed, moralistic misanthropy. Fear of "compromise" and "collaboration" with "an enemy world" leads them to social alienation and insularity.

Does that ring a bell of truth concerning our current crop here? Dear Galt, it's like Mr. Bidinotto met these folks and sat down and wrote those words.

I've made my choice and taken my stand. I choose to work with those whose political principles (that of the minimal state) are congruent with mine. I don't give a shit what any of you small-minded, insular, echo-chamber-occupying 'Objectivists' say about me?these are good people, and your smear tactics and holier-than-thou attitudes have done nothing for the cause of freedom. Nothing. This crop's dogmatic rationalism is a disgusting display. We'll see whose approach works better in the end.

[Richard Nikoley]

I wonder if ginslinger has any clue as to who invented metaphysics, what its nature is, how modern "metaphysics has nothing to do with it, and what, exactly, has been _dismissed_ by professional philosophers for so long.

Billy was actually correct you know, and ginslinger can post any number of lists discussing "metaphisics." But Billy was actually referring to _the_ metaphysics, i.e., that pertaining to the one who invented it.

Moreover, the "meta" in metaphysics means and meant: "after," not "beyond."

[Turd Fergason]

"I wonder if ginslinger has any clue as to who invented metaphysics"

Thomas Edison?

ooh!!!!! Norbert Einstein?

J Robert Oppersinger?

any of those right?

[Ayn_Randian]

ahh, the eschaton. that's something nearly every ideology can agree upon. oh we're all such special snowflakes that not only will the world "end" because we're so very, very special, but it will happen before our very eyes so we can bask in the glory of its cleansing fire.

yes dhex...don't you get it? The Roman Empire must have been anarcho-capitalist. You know, because no society that fails to conform to Mikey's standards could ever, ever survive and flourish for 1000 years.

I guess it's Mikey's side that just doesn't "get it".

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

I AM IMPRESSED THAT RICHARD HAS SUCH INSIGHT INTO WHAT BILLY MEANS. I AM LESS IMPRESSED THAT BILLY THINGS ARISTOTLE IS DISREGARDED BY MODERN PHILOSOPHY. UNLESS RICHARD MEANS THAT DES CARTES IS DISREGARDED BY MODERN PHILOSOPHY, WHICH WILL COME AS A BIG SURPRISE TO ALL THOSE PHILOSOPHERS WHO STILL TEACH DES CARTES. YOUR LIVER WILL BE EATEN, RICHARD, ZEUS WILL NOT LET YOU HARSH ON HIS BOY THAT WAY.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

ZEUS DAMN MY TALONS, THEY ARE NOT FIT FOR TYPING. RICHARD DOES NOT KNOW ARISTOTLE, BO KNOWS ARISTOTLE. THIS IS WHY BO WILL NOT HAVE HIS LIVER EATEN. RICHARD THINKS BADLY OF ZEUS' BOY, THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND!

[dhex]

"I wonder if ginslinger has any clue as to who invented metaphysics"

the first guy who saw boob?

cause i'm pretty sure that's when i invented metaphysics.

if i was more creative i'd write a parody of "jerry was a race car driver" called "aristotle was an astrophysicist in disguise" but frankly i can't figure out how to work the meter without resorting to some buttfuck crazy time signatures, which defeats the purpose of parody, really.

i could definitely work it out to some later period interpol song probably (they have a lot of those tortured rhyme schemes) though my preferred method would be to "slam" poet the shit out of it over something off of a mid-decade venetian snares album.

maybe meathole?

[Billy Beck]

"Jake Boone", he says his name is: "Oh, come on. I was just trying to determine whether this was an in-joke or bombastic puffery. Do you really think people sit around quaking in fear because some Internet dickhead threatens to pop 'em one?"

You're the one who was fretting over the prospect that I would vacuum up your phone number and, I dunno, eat your family with fava beans or something.

"Go outside your compound. Meet some people. Learn about the way non-damaged humans interact."

Bullshit. It's not even cute: it's as pedestrian as it can be, nothing about it is true, and you're pathetic. You have been every single step of the way through this.

Fuckin' babies.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

Fuckin' babies.

BILLY SHOULD TAKE CARE IN DESCRIBING HIS HOBBIES LEST ZEUS DECIDE TO TAKE HIS LIVER BY USING ME AS A DIVINE, LIGHTNING-POWERED INSTRUMENT.

[Billy Beck]

Reviewing the morning's action, it goes like this:

"Wah! he was so mean to me that I had to cry!"

I don't know when I last saw such a crowd of shit-ass swaddlings. They'll let the state steal their candy, but god (or phantom site-mods) forbid that anyone should come around here to their "community" and start looking them in the eye.

This "GinSlinger" entity is something else in the bargain, and all he's going to get is the facts: it is false to say that I lied about metaphysics in philosophy -- no matter what he cites -- it is outrageous that he did that, and it's why I'm not going to bid for his approval with facts on the point. Fuck him.

[lunchstealer]

Fear of "compromise" and "collaboration" with "an enemy world" leads them to social alienation and insularity.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that you've got cause and effect backwards here. The social alienation and insularity cause the fear of compromise and collaboration with an enemy world. The guy's pathological. Very erudite, and no doubt high-functioning, but ultimately pathological.

He came here to pick a fight to re-affirm his own need to be 'right' in a society that doesn't understand him because he's got some fundamental problems dealing with that society.

I will at least give him the credit that he does distinguish himself from McVeigh-style aggression, however else we disagree on acceptable use of aggression. As long as he's not a threat to others, I don't have a real problem with him.

Doesn't mean I approve of his behavior here, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[GinSlinger]

Damnable server squirrels, dhex?

Ricky, you're not even close. Yes, Aristotle was the father of meta physics (notice the space). The final chapters of _The Physics_ to be precise; wherein he discussed the things that were not open to discourse as "physical" phenomenon.

If, and this is a very, very big if, that is what Billy Budd intended, well, he should have borrowed a page from Plato, and indicated the form by writing: Metaphysics. Furthermore, that the community no longer remains confined to the topics discussed by Aristotle in his meta physics is not surprising. After all, we are not confined to discussing ethics merely by rehashing _Nichomachaen Ethics_; nor are our current discussion of politics confined to debates over just _Politics_. Final example, economics no longer pertains purely to the household.

You can continue to back-fill the hole that Billy dug, but with him still in it, you are effectively burying your Christ-your savior-alive. And that's not nearly as good a way to shuffle off this mortal coil as self-immolation.

Finally, if you wish to use words in ways archaic to modern American English, than I suggest you define your terms upfront, or risk being called what is both fair and accurate for those who would purposefully obscure their meaning. The proper term for people who do so is Intellectual Fraud, i.e. Liar (both capitalized, as you, are indeed approaching the form).

[Cin]

Flappy,

Quit flapping. It's nice that you have some knowledge of Greek Mythology, however this is not the topic on here. And, NOTICE, No one is addressing you.

[Billy Beck]

"I don't give a shit what any of you small-minded, insular, echo-chamber-occupying 'Objectivists' say about me..."

You're not paying attention: not one person who you have lined up as the opposition here has claimed that mantle. Not a single one. You could look it up.

Why can't you deal in facts?

[lunchstealer]

Oh, and yeah. Psychopath (or sociopath), not liar.

[lunchstealer]

Flappy,

...And, NOTICE, No one is addressing you.

And Landru goes up in flames.

[Billy Beck]

"He came here to pick a fight..."

Bullshit.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT I AM ADDRESSED. I DO NOT NEED THE PARCEL POST TO BE DELIVERED UNTO MY APPROPRIAT DESTINATION, CI. FOR I AM MILLENIA OLD AND QUITE CAPABLE OF DEVOURING LIVER ALL DAY LONG IF COMMANDED BY ZEUS. I MAY NOT HAVE JUMPED OUT OF HIS HEAD FULLY FORMED LIKE THAT BITCH ATHENA, BUT I HAVE BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK A FEW TIMES.

[dhex]

nay, "meathole" is indeed the name of a venetian snares album. the cover just looks dirty, it's actually his armpit, iirc.

i doubt rand would approve, as it is good and full of talent and vivacious energy (and 13/7 time sigs), and apparently her taste in music was pretty wanky.

[VM]

"it is false to say that I lied about metaphysics in philosophy -- no matter what he cites "

okay - um. even if he cites the facts? ah - the truth condition is you lying. Okay. how about "you were mistaken about meta physics in philosophy"?

BTW: instead of fava beans, might I recommend a potato, parsnip, carrot, and yam ("cocktail of root vegetables") to go along with roasted family...

Flappy is used to being ignored. He is a most strange addition to H&R...

[Ayn_Randian]

You're not paying attention: not one person who you have lined up as the opposition here has claimed that mantle. Not a single one. You could look it up.

Please. You and your monastery have no interest in working with people unless they share the exact same principles they do.

The evidence is right in front of your face.

[Billy Beck]

"Okay. how about 'you were mistaken about meta physics in philosophy'?"

It's not true, but it would not have been an outrage.

[Cin]

You are right about Flappy. However if he's up to talking about Mythology and I can discuss Ancient Egypt, He's welcome to continue in email.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

dhex wrote:
[much deflective nonsense posing as masterful discordian zen]

Summary: if I purchase a rainwater collection system for myself instead of prescription drugs for someone else, I am a malcontent indignant fuckhole rebel who thrives on the intense attention of being hated and as an asshole seeks the attachment of discipleship.

Got it. That is the sentiment of the Main Stream, I know. Thank you for boiling it down to its putrid essence.

This is the heaping helping of abuse I get for wanting to keep what I earn and use it how I choose: I am likened with the disastrously obsessive Golem of Lord of the Rings, scrambling to maintain possession of a Ring of Power over other people's lives. Again: putrid essence, thaaanks.

now, if you want to pretend i'm a socialist, that's ok.

Thanks for the invitation, but I do not want to pretend that you are a socialist. It seems that you may be doing so yourself, but it is hard to discern anything through the thick fog you leave in your wake, smelling of farts.

[Billy Beck]

"You and your monastery..."

Bullshit.

"...have no interest in working with people unless they share the exact same principles they do."

Even if I stipulate to that -- which I don't -- it attempts to slide right past the point that I made. You're dead wrong, and if you look at the evidence right in front of you, it's obvious.

Again: why can't you deal in facts?

[Survey Says!]

"but it is hard to discern anything through the thick fog you leave in your wake, smelling of farts."

7.5/10.

a great idea, but poorly executed - it's generally difficult applying mixed sensory metaphors. But it was definitely a good one, that conjured up that "smug" South Park Episode.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

I WAS NOT ISSUED AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND YAHOO BANNED ME AFTER I TRIED TO NAME MY FANTASY FOOTBALL TEAM "JERRY YANG IS A GODLESS COUCHFUCK." I WILL NOT USE THE HOTMAIL OR THE GOOGLEMAIL, ZEUS FORBIDS IT IN HIS INFINITE AND YET COMPLETELY CAPRICIOUS WISDOM. YOU ARE WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT ANCIENT EGYPT AND THEIR SILLY DOG-FACED PANTHEON ON ANY OCCASION YOU SEE FIT TO DO SO, BUT ZEUS WILL CAUSE ME TO MOCK YOUR SILLY, INFERIOR SUN GOD AND YOUR LOVE FOR DOMESTIC FELINES. BEFORE HE PUT ME ON THIS ALL LIVER DIET I ATE A LOT OF CATS, THAT WOULD BE A NICE CHANGE, ACTUALLY, AFTER ALL THESE CENTURIES.

[VM]

Um - Flappy...

um...

might you be related to The Juggernaut?

[dhex]

patrick:

Summary: if I purchase a rainwater collection system for myself instead of prescription drugs for someone else, I am a malcontent indignant fuckhole rebel who thrives on the intense attention of being hated and as an asshole seeks the attachment of discipleship.

no, no, no.

try again:

you are a fuckhole wannabe rebel because you're a fuckhole wannabe rebel, not because of your views on the immorality of taxation.

This is the heaping helping of abuse I get for wanting to keep what I earn and use it how I choose

what is it with you guys and the martyr complex?

i sense a lot of pain here. a lot of deep pain.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

HE IS SIMILAR IN MANY REGARDS ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY RELATED. OF COURSE, MOTHER THE EAGLE WAS A NOTORIOUS TART SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE, IN FACT, HALF-BROTHERS.

UNFORTUNATELY, ZEUS DOES NOT COMPENSATE ME IN ANY FORM OTHER THAN LIVERS OF VARYING QUALITY AND THE 9-5 CUBEFARM JOB I HAVE TO KEEP THE MORTGAGE PAID AND THE MRS IN BLOOD FEATHER CLEANER FILTERS THE YOUTUBE.

[VM]

dhex -

so what you're saying is that the most mega mondo entertaining thread EVAR is with a bunch of fans of The Offspring?

oh the horror. oh the pain!!!

[Billy Beck]

"i sense a lot of pain here. a lot of deep pain."

Yes another net.shrink. Did you get your degree with your ISP deal?

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

FLAPPY PLEASES THE MINION OF URKOBOLD.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

I AM GLAD THE MINION IS PLEASED.

IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE OFFSPRING, VM? THEY WERE A BIG INFLUENCE BACK IN COLLEGE, IS ALL, AND IF THAT'S THE ROOT CAUSE OF MY MARITAL PROBLEMS I'D LIKE TO KNOW. OF COURSE I THINK THE LONG HOURS AND LACK OF EGG FERTILIZING IS REALLY THE CAUSE, BUT THAT WEIRD BLOND WHITE GUY COULD BE...WAIT, I THINK THAT FUCKER IS BANGING MY WIFE!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

FEAR NOT THE ADVANCES OF DEXTER, FLAPPY. FOR THAT IS THE WEIBSKOBOLD, INVITING YOU TO A DELICIOUS, TERRIFYING, WONDERFUL THREESOME!!!!

YOU MIGHT HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF A GERMAN THREESOME.

BILLY PECK IS MISTAKEN. DHEX IS NOT AN INTERNET SHRINK. HE LEARNED HIS MAGICAL ARTS FROM YODA, BUT WAS A COMPELLINGLY-WRITTEN CHARACTER, SO HE WAS CUT FROM STAR WARS LXIX "THE STEAMING PILE OF SITH"

[VM]

Do not take my liver, Flappy!!!

Only that the Offspring is sometimes the band of the suburban tough guys!

[Cin]

In my opinion both Flappy and Minion are very strange. Flappy you are an odd bird. No pun intended, really. However hit the books, every single one you can find and trace the Greek gods and goddesses backwards and you will find they are infact Egyptian gods and goddesses. This research is lenghty and should keep you busy, and if you are smart you will find it all there. Oh and I'm Bast. Which form am I now taking and this is a test of your intelligence.

To everyone else on here I apologize for the diversion from topic, but I've studied this most of my life and Flappy presented a challenge I could not resist.

[Cin]

Flappy, No fair hitting the web for your answers. You should know them off the top of your head. You know that bump on your shoulders.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

CIN IT IS YOUR DOG-FACED GODS AND THEIR PICTURE ALPHABET USING FOLLOWERS WHO ARE MISTAKEN! LOOK, I HAVE A LOAF OF BREAD I THINK I WILL DRAW SOME BREAD AND HAVE THAT MEAN "BREAD" IN MY WRITTEN LANGUAGE. HOW LAME DO YOU HAVE TO BE FOR THAT? WHAT KIND OF SILLY REPRESENTATIONIST DOESN'T REPRESENT IDEAS WITH RANDOMLY DRAWN SQUIGGLY LINES? EVEN THE SUMERIANS HAD ONE UP ON EGYPT IN THAT REGARD YOU SILLY, SILLY MAN. ZEUS DEMANDS LIVER FOR YOUR INSOLENCE!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

MINION IS INDEED STRANGE. EVER SINCE HE WAS DROPPED ON HIS HEAD AS A WEE LAD - BEFORE HE DISCOVERED HIS LOVE OF EATING PAINT CHIPS.

THAT HABIT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE PHASE OF SMEARING LIBRARY PASTE ON HIS SILKY-SOFT BOTTOM AND SCREAMING HYSTERICALLY DURING FIRE DRILLS.

ALL OF THAT HAPPENED AFTER A SUMMER-BEFORE- FOURTH-GRADE TRIP TO EGYPT WHERE HE BANGED HIS ELBOW GOING INTO KING TUT'S TOMB.

[Richard Nikoley]

"If, and this is a very, very big if, that is what Billy Budd intended, well, he should have borrowed a page from Plato, and indicated the form by writing: Metaphysics. Furthermore, that the community no longer remains confined to the topics discussed by Aristotle in his meta physics is not surprising."

You are so fucking full of bullshit.

See, I don't doubt for a single second that you knew precisely what Billy was referring to. There had been an extensive discussion of Rand prior, and unless you live in a cave you know that Rand's metaphysics harken to Aristotle.

When I saw what Billy wrote, I immediately knew exactly what he meant. You're in a forum inder the REASON banner, and even if you don't give a shit about Rand, you have doubtless been exposed to years upon years of Aristotelian/Randian metaphysics and you knew exactly what Billy was getting at.

And you set about to explicitly accuse his of consciously lying, and you perpetuate a total fraud in doing it, a fraud you perpetuate to this day.

Even the sleazy slut Jennifer doesn't hold a candle to you.

[lunchstealer]

I don't think anyone here cares one way or the other if if any of you wants to live off the grid and avoid income taxes. We might not make the same choices, but you be you.

What I don't particularly respect is the implication that the world owes it to you to do business with you. You are choosing to reject the system in which the rest of us do business, which is certainly the right of any individual. However, none of us owes it to you to join you in your system. If you want to get something from me, you'll have to pay me for it. If you want me to employ you, you'll have to either join the tax system, or find someone willing to abrogate that system with you.

You can certainly argue that I should do so, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that you hate me for living my life.

[MoU]

seasonal Pasht

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Survey Says:

7.5/10.

a great idea, but poorly executed - it's generally difficult applying mixed sensory metaphors.

I appeal to the judge for an extra 1.5 points. I am aware of the general rule against mixed metaphors. However, in the case of dhex, the two sensory aspects serve independent defensive functions: the visual as camouflage, and the olfactory as repellent.

I await your decision.

[Billy Beck]

"What I don't particularly respect is the implication that the world owes it to you to do business with you."

You just made that up on your own. And you know it.

[The French Judge]

granted.

merde.

[Cin]

Flappy, You forget the period of time in your response. I can read that and it is also art. You are forgetting that Egyptians were very artistic. You know zip about Egypt and you just proved it. Oh, the answer was Skmet! That's all, you're dismissed from class.

[Minion of URKOBOLD, Gozerian]

UND AS PUNISCHMENT, VEE SCHALL DIP ZEE EGGZ OF FLAPPY ZEE EAGLE INTO ZEE STEAMING VAT OF

D
D
T

BOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Richard Nikoley]

"What I don't particularly respect is the implication that the world owes it to you to do business with you."

Are you really this fucking stupid?

I will, though I shouldn't, remind you that the "business" you speak of is a protection racket that steals from me and everyone else.

"I don't think anyone here cares one way or the other if if any of you wants to live off the grid"

That is the point, you imbecile. We are talking about the fact that it is impossible to "live off the grid." One way or another, everyone is subject to financing and paying homage to "your business."

I'm not even going to get into the Spiro Agnew overtones.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

lunchstealer said:
[many wonderful things]

I don't think anyone here cares one way or the other if if any of you wants to live off the grid and avoid income taxes.

Perfect!

We might not make the same choices, but you be you.

Thank you.

What I don't particularly respect is the implication that the world owes it to you to do business with you.

Nor would I respect that implication! Anyone who thinks that is an ass.

You are choosing to reject the system in which the rest of us do business, which is certainly the right of any individual.

As clear a statement of respect for others I can imagine.

However, none of us owes it to you to join you in your system. If you want to get something from me, you'll have to pay me for it.

Certainly!

If you want me to employ you, you'll have to either join the tax system, or find someone willing to abrogate that system with you.

Yep, you set the terms hoss.

You can certainly argue that I should do so, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that you hate me for living my life.

On the contrary, I respect you for living your life.

Moreover, I think the government should give you a gilt-edged certificate to display in your place of business, emblazoned "Proud Sponsor of the United States Government." I'm serious. You'd be proud, and I bet you'd get a lot of business that way.

In point of fact, right now, situated as I am in the hedge fund accounting business, I can tell you without equivocation that being audited by the SEC and conforming with GAAP and FAS and other standards is a definite selling point for any fund. Even if the SEC and the attendant standards were entirely voluntarily, you'd almost have to be a fool not to seek certification under them, if for no other reason than helping you raise mountains of investment capital.

(Same kind of thing goes for Underwriters' Laboratory certification of electrical devices.)

This is an example of why I favor all sorts of "archy," provided that the archons are financially accountable to their patrons: which means, that the patrons are free to take their money elsewhere without fearing for their lives and property.

[Ernest Brown]

Richard,

"You are so fucking full of bullshit."

That's right. Classical system-building metaphysics has been rejected for years in modern philosophy. Heidegger (echoed by Derrida) himself attacked the French Existentialists for collapsing metaphysics into anthropology. (cf. Heidegger and French Philosophy: Humanism, Antihumanism and Being by Tom Rockmore, page 142, with specific reference to "'the monsterous translation' of Dasein as "'human reality'," that Heideger and Derrida denounce)

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

IT DOES NOT OCCUR TO CIN THAT AS AN ENTITY OF ZEUS I HAVE NO USE FOR KNOWEDGE OF EGYPT. ZEUS DOESN'T REALLY LIKE THEM AND THEIR WOMEN SMELL FUNNY. ALSO, SOMETIMES I MUST DO THINGS FOR WHICH I AM PAID CASH MONEY THAT I MAY KEEP FEEDING THAT CHEATING HUSSIE WIFE OF MINE AND PAYING THE MORTGAGE. I WILL TAKE AS LONG AS I WANT TO RESPOND AND YOU WILL LEARN TO DEAL WITH THAT IN YOUR OWN WAY AS I HAVE OVER THE MILLENIA. OR YOU WON'T THAT'S NOT REALLY MY PROBLEM, EITHER WAY YOU'LL BE DOWN A LIVER.

[Dicky Moose Attenbourough]

Welcome back to National Reasongraphic. Today we're observing the wonk-limbed Nikoley in its natural habitat.

Look how he behaves in the thicket.

The Spotted Dhex is strutting around the corner. Watch what happens when the Nikoley sees the Spotted Dhex

oh - look, the Nikoley has seen the strutting spotted dhex. watch how the Nikoley's genitalia retreat up his rectum. It is a defense mechanism that has evolved after his lunch was stolen, eons ago. (presumably by the meta physical lunchstealer)

the other defense is the Pilly Peck(er) move - resorting to gender-based bullying violence. While Pilly Peck(er) used physical and sexual violence, the Nikoley uses verbal.

Beautiful example of the Nikoley.

The other things that cause these semi primates react with such incredible predictability is when Gin gets slung over them in an intellectual bukkake or a brainy golden shower.

Most fascinating. Now the Earnest Brown (also known as the Mirror Mirror Insincere Purple) reacts to fear in a different way. Oh! There he goes! He actually preforms a Cleveland Steamer on himself. The flexibility required is truly staggering.

If a male humanoid had such flexibility, he would nary leave Grandma's basement!

[Ernest Brown]

I should add that Derrida is known to be skeptical about grand schematizations.

[The French Judge]

Earnest Brown is hereby awarded 9.9975/10 for perfect application of the Post Modern Generator web site.

Tres Bien. bienne travaille!

[GinSlinger]

Ricky, if you are going to argue particulars, argue particulars, not generalizations. What is wrong with your intellect that when someone says the word "metaphysics," it means to you "celestial bodies" and Rand and Aristotle to the exclusion of everything else that that word represents?

Let's try this on for size. When I say "economics," do you think "household"?

When you doctor told you he was worried about your "incontinence," did you really think he was disturbed that you typically choose the vicious? Or that there might be some concern over the fact that you were sitting in a pool of your own fecal matter and urine?

Face it buddy, you are no more capable of knowing that I "knew precisely what Billy was referring to" then you are of knowing what I am doing now. To claim otherwise is to claim omniscience, and that's a road even you aren't likely to want to go down at the risk of being called a liar.

Face it, Billy Budd had his chance to retract his poor choice of words, that he chooses to stick by it, and depends on his yes men to defend it, is ton exactly an example of moral or intellectual integrity. I hope that when the time appointed by Billy Budd comes, you will not be disappointed that the only flavour kool-aid he supplies will be grape.

[Ernest Brown]

French Judge,

Bzzz, I call foul. No true chauvinistic Frenchman would give me that high of a score for saying bad things about French philosophers. I suspect that you are a Swiss in disguise.

[Newly Demasked Swiss judge]

zut alors...

[dhex]

oh c'mon french judge, no one actually uses that fucking thing.

However, in the case of dhex, the two sensory aspects serve independent defensive functions: the visual as camouflage, and the olfactory as repellent.

back to the whole reputation thing, since that's the only truly interesting thread here: is this what you guys have been calling "fraud" along the lines of someone calling billy a liar?

i'm curious how this works, as at least by your guys' unorthodox standards (no Main Stream here) that means you've all stolen my reputation several times over.

i mean, earlier someone accused me of cavorting with shirley mcclain. for the record, i've never even *seen* laverne and shirley.

[Ayn_Randian]

Patrick, do you pay your income taxes?

[Ernest Brown]

Oh, I get it, in order to be right, you must be first. That makes my reading list a lot lighter.
Nozick? Gone.
Rand? Gone.
Hume? Gone.
Smith? Gone.
Aristotle? Gone! (In everything except metaphysics--since he "invented" it.)

[Billy Beck]

"Classical system-building metaphysics has been rejected for years in modern philosophy."

American Pragmatism. (Like I said: this goes back more than a hundred years, and you can find it today in people like Rorty.)

To my eye, that's one of its crucial features.

Let's not forget the Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism. I don't know how it gets more explicit than them.

[Charles Saunders Pierce]

How very interesting.

[GinSlinger]

GRRRR! That 13:35 post was me, addressing Ernest. See what happens when anarchists refuse to chip in to feed the squirrels?

My apologies, no fraud was intended.

[Timothy]

Billy, you are educated stupid.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

dhex randomly spewed:

you are a fuckhole wannabe rebel because you're a fuckhole wannabe rebel, not because of your views on the immorality of taxation.

Then you have failed to identify the essential characteristics of a "fuckhole wannabe rebel."

what is it with you guys and the martyr complex?
i sense a lot of pain here. a lot of deep pain.

No, drama queen, I ... just ... wanted to buy a rainwater collection system is all.

[Ernest Brown]

"American Pragmatism. (Like I said: this goes back more than a hundred years, and you can find it today in people like Rorty.)

To my eye, that's one of its crucial features.

Let's not forget the Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism. I don't know how it gets more explicit than them."

Well, it's even more than that. Big works of systematic metaphysics are rare nowadays. Brand Blanshard did it in America along with a couple or more others that don't come to mind at the moment. Heidegger's biggest influences were on the existentialists and deconstructionist/postmodernists. We've already seen that Heidegger sets Sartre's pants on fire for reducing metaphysics to anthropology, and the decon/pomos distrust big narratives of any kind.

You'll also not that they're now forced to forge posts under my name that have -nothing- to do with what I've said. Par for the course.

[Richard Nikoley]

"it means to you "celestial bodies"

Bullshit. You're making that up. Now, go ahead and quote what I wrote, confessing your continued and perpetual "inability" to discern plain meaning, which is no such thing: it's purposeful and practiced.

"you are no more capable of knowing"

I did not claim to know that, and you know that.

Just keep it up, shithead. That's all you can do, anyway. You really have not, nor are you capable of contributing anything substantive. You and the rest of your crowd of poseurs are capable of only one thing, and that's the attempt to raise your stature by purposely misapprehending what others write and then engaging in a barrage of out-of-context, drop-context, and change-context diversions.

You're playing the standard game of dishonest practical politics and journalism, with a libertarian flair! -- yippee! -- but you're every bit as corrupt and purposefully dishonest.

At root, you're just a thief. You could care less about adding or contributing an ounce of insight or value to any of this. You simply lie in wait, looking for efforts at clarification and understanding made by others, anxiously perusing them for ways to attack and tear down.

Pretty much the modus of just about everyone, here.

[GinSlinger]

I, in no way worked with heat and metal to construct that post.

So, you've just provided, what, four examples that prove Billy Budd wrong when he wrote: Actual historical explanation: since the summary dismissal of metaphysics in professional philosophy a bit over a hundred years ago, "a bunch of people" have gone on to first ignore reality and then to make up any bloody thing they want to in its place.?

[Ernest Brown]

Gin,

"GRRRR! That 13:35 post was me, addressing Ernest. See what happens when anarchists refuse to chip in to feed the squirrels?

My apologies, no fraud was intended."

Accepted. I just now saw it.

"Oh, I get it, in order to be right, you must be first. That makes my reading list a lot lighter."

No, speaking for myself, I agree with the Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysical position because it reflects reality as I see it, not because it was "first," just as I don't accept Kant's phenomenal/noumenal distinctiong on other grounds that its lateness next to Aristotle's

[Ernest Brown]

"distinction"

[GinSlinger]

Richard wrote: See, I don't doubt for a single second that you knew precisely what Billy was referring to., to which I replied you are no more capable of knowing that I "knew precisely what Billy was referring to" then you are of knowing what I am doing now., to which he replied: I did not claim to know that, and you know that.. What, then is your definition of "don't doubt"? I'm not the one putting things in your mouth (words), you are (foot).

"it means to you "celestial bodies"

Bullshit. You're making that up. Now, go ahead and quote what I wrote, confessing your continued and perpetual "inability" to discern plain meaning, which is no such thing: it's purposeful and practiced.

Okay, here ya go:

Gotcha. Spaceships (man made), and the celestial bodies they visit and orbit (metaphysical): false distinction.

[dhex]

for a bunch of wind-up dolls, you guys

Then you have failed to identify the essential characteristics of a "fuckhole wannabe rebel."

i don't need to, because as a wind-up doll you'll keep posting, thus creating a living sculpture to which i can point and say "i had some small part in making that."

No, drama queen, I ... just ... wanted to buy a rainwater collection system is all.

so the insult = fraud I MUST BREAK YOU crowd isn't the drama queen in this exchange?

anyway, are any of you cockholes going to get back on the reputational thing here? i'm curious as to whether fraud remains fraud when directed at someone other than mr. beck, or whether this is a sublimated, emotional d/s thing.

speaking of which:

At root, you're just a thief. You could care less about adding or contributing an ounce of insight or value to any of this. You simply lie in wait, looking for efforts at clarification and understanding made by others, anxiously perusing them for ways to attack and tear down.

seriously, what the fuck is up with this martyr thing? besieged from all directions by dark forces, like a bunch of fucking wiccans or something!

listen, when i bust into your house, shit on the floor, and start screaming at everyone and then accuse everyone else of misunderestimating my cold, steel heart of truth, please remind me to blame everyone else for the situation.

[GinSlinger]

Ernest, and I mean this earnestly, that is a perfectly acceptable answer, and one that I am sympathetic to. But, to claim (as some have) that there has been no serious attention paid to metaphysics because by metaphysics they meant an Aristotelean metaphysics, is to do what I described. It would have been better to have said (the original poster) "there has been a dismissal of Aristotelean-based metaphysics over the last hundred years by a majority of philosophers."

[Ayn_Randian]

You and the rest of your crowd of poseurs are capable of only one thing, and that's the attempt to raise your stature by purposely misapprehending what others write and then engaging in a barrage of out-of-context, drop-context, and change-context diversions.

Lessee here...insular, misanthropic, acting like there's an enemy world...

Looks like we have a winner!

It would be funny were it not so, so sad.

[Richard Nikoley]

"What, then is your definition of "don't doubt"?"

Something quite less than _know_ (absence of speculation). Something more than wild ass speculation or even a speculative _maybe_. Confident speculation would be a close description, meaning I have no good reason to doubt it's a good or reasonable speculation.

"Okay, here ya go:..."

Me: cars, airplanes, wedding rings (metallic)

You: metallic, definition: car, airplane, wedding ring.

I have no doubt you are completely dishonest in your method. I think you know exactly what you're doing.

[GinSlinger]

context seems to be the one thing truly missing from this thread.

[Kyle Bennett]

See, Ernest, he wants you to consider the metaphysics born into existence upon the successful persuasion of many Californians as sufficient referent for all the references and "serious attention" that give lie to Billy's assertion.

[GinSlinger]

Richard:

You: stars, sun, moon (metaphysical)
Me: physical: things like star, sun, moon.

Wow, you're really bad at this. You should have at least threatened me with violence. You need to spend more time on the mat with your sensi, Billy.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Just keep it up, shithead. That's all you can do, anyway. You really have not, nor are you capable of contributing anything substantive. You and the rest of your crowd of poseurs are capable of only one thing [...]

Edward?? is that you?

EDWEIRDDDDOOOOOOOOOO

[Kyle Bennett]

GS, that's the first honest statement you've made all day. And still, I bet you didn't really mean it.

[GinSlinger]

Hey, Kyle? Did you look at the thread I linked to? My guess is no, but I have my doubts. Do you have a freakin' clue what JSTOR is? Once again, my guess is no. At no point did I point you to "the successful persuasion of many Californians."

Take a FRN and buy a clue, or, just steer clear of Billy Budd for a while and perhaps you can reprogram yourself.

[Ernest Brown]

Gin,

You presented a "nose count" of articles. A number of those are going to be analyisis and critiques of historical positions in metaphysics that are not germane to whether or not classical system-building metaphysics are a popular modern philosophical pastime. As ofr a lot of the work called "metaphysics" today, here's a commentary by someone who is very much not Billy. Fodor cautions that he's oversimplifying ("mythopoetic"), but what he says jibes with my experience:

"Stage one: conceptual analysis. A revisionist account of the philosophical enterprise came into fashion just after World War Two. Whereas it used to be said that philosophy is about, for example, Goodness or Existence or Reality or How the Mind Works, or whether there is a Cat on the Mat, it appears, in retrospect, that that was just a loose way of talking. Strictly speaking, philosophy consists (or consists largely, or ought to consist largely) of the analysis of our concepts and/or of the analysis of the 'ordinary language' locutions that we use to express them. It's not the Good, the True or the Beautiful that a philosopher tries to understand, it's the corresponding concepts of 'good' 'beautiful' and 'true'.

This way of seeing things has tactical advantages. Being good is hard; few achieve it. But practically everybody has some grasp of the concept 'good', so practically everybody knows as much as he needs to start on its analysis. Scientists, historians and the like need to muck around in libraries and laboratories to achieve their results, but concepts can be analysed in the armchair. Better still, the conceptual truths philosophy delivers are 'a priori' because grasp of a concept is all that's required for their recognition. Better still, whereas the findings of historians and scientists are always revisable in principle, it's plausible that the truths conceptual analysis reveals are necessary. If you want to know how long the reign of George V lasted, you will probably need to look it up, and you're always in jeopardy of your sources being unreliable. (I'm told he reigned from 1910-36, but I wouldn't bet the farm.) But the philosopher's proposition that a reign must last some amount of time or other would seem to be a conceptual truth; being extended in time belongs to the concept of a reign. Historians might conceivably find out that George V reigned from, say, 1910-37. That would no doubt surprise them, but evidence might turn up that can't be gainsaid. Philosophy, however, knows beyond the possibility of doubt - beyond, indeed, the possibility of coherent denial - that if George V reigned at all, then he reigned for a while. The truths that conceptual analysis arrives at are thus apodictic, rather like the truths of geometry. Such a comfort. Ever since Plato, philosophers have envied geometers their certitudes. So it's not surprising that the story about philosophy being conceptual analysis was well received all the way from Oxford to Berkeley, with many intermediate stops.

Still, there was felt to be trouble pretty early on. For one thing, no concepts ever actually did get analysed, however hard philosophers tried. (Early in the century there was detectable optimism about the prospects for analysing 'the', but it faded). Worse, the arguments that analytic philosophers produced were often inadvertently hilarious. Examples are legion and some of them are legendary. Here are just two that will, I hope, suffice to give the feel of the thing. (Truly, I didn't make up either of them. The second comes from Hughes, and I've heard the first attributed to an otherwise perfectly respectable philosopher whose name charity forbids me to disclose.) First argument: the issue is whether there is survival after death, and the argument purports to show that there can't be. 'Suppose an airplane carrying ten passengers crashes and that seven of the ten die. Then what we would say is that three passengers survived, not that ten passengers survived. QED.' Second argument: the issue is whether people are identical with their bodies. 'Suppose you live with Bob . . . who went into a coma on Wednesday . . . Suppose that a friend calls on Thursday and says: "I need to talk to Bob: is he still in England?" You might naturally answer: "Yes, but he's in a coma." Now fill in the story as before, but suppose that Bob had died. When the friend says "I need to talk to Bob: is he still in England?" would you really answer, "Yes, but he's dead," even if you knew that Bob's (dead) body still exists and is still in England?' Presumably not, so QED once again. Now, I don't myself believe that there is survival after death; nor do I believe that persons are identical with their bodies. But, either way, these arguments strike me as risible; dialectics dissolves in giggles. If, as would appear, the view that philosophy is conceptual analysis sanctions this sort of carrying on, there must surely be something wrong with the view. So much for stage one."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n20/fodo01_.html

(end quote)

[Richard Nikoley]

"Lessee here...insular, misanthropic, acting like there's an enemy world..."

Just to make explicit clarification, I don't count you among these people at all (I suppose I should have made a list). Neither Jake Boone, to further clarify, and there may be another or two.

So far as I can tell you have not been consciously trying to misunderstand for the purpose of gaining some crowd-pleasing advantage.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You: stars, sun, moon (metaphysical)
Me: physical: things like star, sun, moon."

Those are both correct. This would be incorrect:

stars, sun, moon (metaphysics)

[GinSlinger]

Richard, not even close

Again, the OED

doubt, v.: 1. intr. To be in doubt or uncertainty; to be wavering or undecided in opinion or belief.

so, on to the noun form:

doubt, n.: The (subjective) state of uncertainty with regard to the truth or reality of anything; undecidedness of belief or opinion.

Therefore, when you "don't doubt" something, you are not in a state of uncertainty with regard to the truth or reality of anything. Ergo, you "know." Ergo, you are claiming omniscience.

[GinSlinger]

Richard, so, if that is the case (that my paraphrasing of you is correct), why did you back track from it in the first place? Perhaps you should think before you post.

[GinSlinger]

Ernest,
A number of those are going to be analyisis and critiques of historical positions in metaphysics that are not germane to whether or not classical system-building metaphysics are a popular modern philosophical pastime.

Fair enough, but that is not what was claimed. What was claimed was that there was a dismissal of "metaphysics," not "classical system-building metaphysics."

God is in the details.

[Ayn_Randian]

So far as I can tell you have not been consciously trying to misunderstand for the purpose of gaining some crowd-pleasing advantage.

Fair enough, Richard...but I think you're attributing malevolent motivations to what are, at best, misunderstandings.

That's because Truth doesn't rise and fall with the approval of Crowd. However, Force does, and that's why I've been saying it's more necessary to convince than to antagonize.

[Ernest Brown]

"Ernest, and I mean this earnestly, that is a perfectly acceptable answer, and one that I am sympathetic to. But, to claim (as some have) that there has been no serious attention paid to metaphysics because by metaphysics they meant an Aristotelean metaphysics, is to do what I described. It would have been better to have said (the original poster) "there has been a dismissal of Aristotelean-based metaphysics over the last hundred years by a majority of philosophers."

It's not just Aristotle, but virtually all "big" systematic metaphysical efforts. Rich and Billy are referring to Aristotle because he's the historical philosophical character they care about, but Hegel, McTaggart, Blanshard and even Kant (to the extent of actually concentrating on his metaphysical side, as opposed to his epistemology) have been generally sidelined as well. This doesn't mean that NO one is doing work in that area, just that it hasn't been what the discipine is concentrating on.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Therefore, when you "don't doubt" something, you are not in a state of uncertainty with regard to the truth or reality of anything. Ergo, you "know." Ergo, you are claiming omniscience."

What I know is that this does not describe common colloquial usage. I don't doubt that you know it, too.

I suspect with a high degree of confidence that you engage in such word-gaming as a crowd-pleasing diversion and to hide the fact that you are contributing nothing -- that you are, in essence, a parasite in relation to the more thoughtful efforts put forth by others.

[Richard Nikoley]

"so, if that is the case (that my paraphrasing of you is correct), why did you back track from it in the first place? Perhaps you should think before you post."

I don't know what you're talking about.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"I don't know what you're talking about."

DING DING DING.

FIRST ACTUAL STATEMENT BY THE NIKOLEY.

IF YOU NOTICED, HE ALSO PERFORMED THE SELF-CLEVELAND-STEAMER.

MOST IMPRESSIVE!

[GinSlinger]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, I doubt that.

What I know is that this does not describe common colloquial usage.

Nor does using the word "metaphysical" to mean "classical system-building metaphysics."

So, live by the sword, die by the sword.

Actually, my goal here is to get you all to realize that you have no argument other than goalpost moving. That you speak in a secret code to each other, using definitions only common amongst yourselves, and then complain that others "don't get it."

As an example: what the hell is "it"? And if you tell me that I don't get "it," as your argument, I will have won.

What you are running into is the fact that words are not objectively defined, and that you are contributing to the problem.

My words +300FRN will get you an OED and one step closer to understanding your errors.

[Ayn_Randian]

I suspect with a high degree of confidence that you engage in such word-gaming as a crowd-pleasing diversion and to hide the fact that you are contributing nothing

Words mean things. Such is life...perhaps you should be more careful and precise in the terms and terminology you use.

I don't see it as word-gaming, I see it as holding you to the same standard you're holding to others: to be precise in their definitions.

And again, why are you attributing such a malevolent motivation to what could be a misunderstanding?

[Ernest Brown]

"Fair enough, but that is not what was claimed. What was claimed was that there was a dismissal of "metaphysics," not "classical system-building metaphysics."

God is in the details"

At the risk of "speaking for Billy," due to my long history of knowing his attitudes towards philosophy and how he uses terms, for William J Beck III "metaphysics="classical system-building metaphysics" (Billy, of course, is free to set me straight) Thus Kant, whom Billy detests, is a (bad) metaphysician, while the people that Fodor talks about are merely doing conceptual analysis and labeling it "metaphysics."

Watch out for dictionary ("lexical") definitions in philosophy. Philosophers and those interested in the discipline don't necessarily feel that Webster's descriptions coincide with philosophial reality. They're primarily useful for posting and asking "Is this what you mean. If not, why, and what do -you- mean by it?"

[GinSlinger]

Fair point about jargon, but (I shouldn't have to point this out), Billy is not engaging scholastic philosophers. His imprecision is the very same thing he deplores so loudly in others. "Check your premises." If he had checked, he would (perhaps) have realized that he had a faulty premise if he thought that he was engaging scholastic philosophers--and he's admitted as much.

[Ayn_Randian]

At the risk of "speaking for Billy," due to my long history of knowing his attitudes towards philosophy and how he uses terms, for William J Beck III "metaphysics="classical system-building metaphysics"

Fully cognizant of the fact you cannot speak for Billy, this argument would mean that Billy honestly think that metaphysics hasn't been discussed in philosophy for 100 years because they haven't been discussing HIS VERSION of what metaphysics is?

Granted, a rose is a rose, but I mean...come on now, just because the philosophers haven't stuck to his definition of metaphysics doesn't mean they haven't been discussing it.

[Ernest Brown]

Correction"

"for William J Beck III "metaphysics=classical system-building metaphysics and/or philosophies derived from or allied to them"

is a better definition, or else Rand (for example) would have been excluded from talking about metaphysics because she never wrote an overarching book-length non-fiction work on the subject herself.

[Billy Beck]

"That's because Truth doesn't rise and fall with the approval of Crowd."

You're presuming that everyone understands this and has their epistemic priorities in order.

It's not true, by a long shot.

[Ernest Brown]

"Granted, a rose is a rose, but I mean...come on now, just because the philosophers haven't stuck to his definition of metaphysics doesn't mean they haven't been discussing it."

He didn't say that they didn't discuss it, he said that they -dismissed- it. Just because I discuss Nazism, it doesn't mean that I don't -dismiss- it as an acceptable political ideology.

Likewise characters like A.J. Ayer discussed metaphysics, to be sure, only in the context of how it should be rejected in toto.

[Billy Beck]

Ernest: "At the risk of "speaking for Billy,..."

Don't worry about it. There are some things that I think I'll need to point out, though, later. I'm busy.

[Billy Beck]

"Likewise characters like A.J. Ayer discussed metaphysics, to be sure, only in the context of how it should be rejected in toto."

Yes. Yes, yes yes.

[GinSlinger]

Ernest, it's one thing to say that is dismissed as "an acceptable . . . ideology." and another to say that has been dismissed by those who would normally discuss it. To "dismiss" is to send away, if philosophy (as a study) dismissed metaphysics, it means they sent it away, not that they dismissed it as "an acceptable . . . ideology."

See? when one navigates without thought between the general and the specific, one easily confuses the issue.

[GinSlinger]

Damnable formatting tags. Let's try this again:

Ernest, it's one thing to say that {insert topic/issue} is dismissed as "an acceptable . . . ideology." and another to say that {insert topic/issue} has been dismissed by those who would normally discuss it. To "dismiss" is to send away, if philosophy (as a study) dismissed metaphysics, it means they sent it away--out of the field--not that they dismissed it as "an acceptable . . . ideology[/issue]."

See? when one navigates without thought between the general and the specific, one easily confuses the issue.

[Billy Beck]

Excuse me, but -- not even stipulating to the rest of your bullshit --- tell me where the "lie" is in what I said, you scum-drooling little fuck.

[Ayn_Randian]

Excuse me, but -- not even stipulating to the rest of your bullshit --- tell me where the "lie" is in what I said, you scum-drooling little fuck.

What a piece of work.

You're all talking past each other based on specific definitions, and you feel justified in calling someone such uncouth things.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"you scum-drooling little fuck."

HAY!!!! I'M THE ONLY SCUM-DROOLING LITTLE FUCK HIER ON THIS THREAD.

THAT'S NOT FAIR.

AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lunchstealer]

BTW, Thanks, Patrick, I appreciate the honesty/courtesy there. And I get the whole 'certificate' thing. I've never been able to buy into the concept of private police forces and court systems, myself, but that's about the only major prescriptive out of anarchocap thinking that I don't at least 'get'.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Oh, I doubt that."

Fine. Fuck right off, then. You address me, ambiguously referring to any one of a number of preceding exchanges without a smattering of even a quote to help me determine which one you're referring to.

Doubt it all you want, fuckface.

[GinSlinger]

tell me where the "lie" is in what I said, you scum-drooling little fuck.

Ah, I thought he had gone back on his meds.

Bill Budd said: since the summary dismissal of metaphysics in professional philosophy a bit over a hundred years ago

To which I responded with a thousand or so sources indicating that "metaphysics" had, in fact, not been dismissed (To send forth (a thing); to let go; to give issue or egress to.).

Now, you may have intended to say "metaphysics=classical system-building metaphysics and/or philosophies derived from or allied to them," but you didn't.

So, your statement, posed as someone with knowledge in the field, was, prima facie, a lie.

You knew damn well, and have admitted here, that there was work in a field called "metaphysics" going on over the last one hundred years, but you presented the opposite as fact.

[These Guests are sure funni]

"Doubt it all you want, fuckface."

OKAY.

BUT FOR THE RECORD, NIKOLEY, IT WAS THE PART OF THE THREAD WHERE YOU SAID THOSE THINGS AND STUFF WHERE THERE WAS SOME DISAGREEMENT.

AND THEN YOU SWORE, SPATTERED, SPITTLED, SPUTTLED, PANTIES (DAMN, WHAT A GIVEAWAY), AND CALLED NAMES AND CONTINUED ARGUING HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE FLOOR OF THE VIPER ROOM.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Nor does using the word "metaphysical" to mean "classical system-building metaphysics."

That's fine. However, the context of the libertarian, Randian familiar audience, combined with the foregoing discussion of Rand, combined with Billy's generally laid-out take on things might suggest that is what he was most likely referring to.

He'd not have minded a request for clarification in the slightest. Indeed, sincerely asked for, he'd have been delighted to elaborate.

Of course, that kind of clarity is precisely what you don't want, right? After all, dishonestly exploiting anything short of exhaustive precision in all matters is precisely what you feed on, parasite.

[GinSlinger]

I guess you don't remember backtracking from defining celestial bodies as metaphysical. I'll jog your memory:

My apologies. Since you weren't grasping the distinction between the metaphysical and man mad, I figured I'd fudge and take a baby step. I had no reason to think that a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical wouldn't just be a bit too much.

Then, you went back to defining the sun, moon, and stars (celestial bodies) as metaphysical. Here's it simply put: Do you believe that the sun, moon, and stars are metaphysical or physical?

[Billy Beck]

"You're all talking past each other based on specific definitions, and you feel justified in calling someone such uncouth things."

I didn't accuse him of lying.

If you can't see to the bottom of that, then just shut the fuck up.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Words mean things. Such is life...perhaps you should be more careful and precise in the terms and terminology you use."

Oh, thanks. "Words means things." Thanks for that. I'd have thought that was subsumed and taken for grated each time anyone types one [word] out. But I guess it never hurts to review.

So, everyone: count yourselves reminded. Words mean things.

[GinSlinger]

So, it's perfectly alright to say one thing, and mean another?

[lunchstealer]

"Oh, I doubt that."

Fine. Fuck right off, then. You address me, ambiguously referring to any one of a number of preceding exchanges without a smattering of even a quote to help me determine which one you're referring to.

Doubt it all you want, fuckface.

"Do you think you could be a bit less vague here?"

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

Gah! All this alchemical know-how and the secret for turning goose-sauce into gander-sauce continues to elude me!

Wait, the answer was right there all along!

[GinSlinger]

Billy Budd,

You ever going to address the issue of the lie? Or, are you just going to spew and stutter, like your namesake, before taking out your frustrations at you inability to effective communicate physically?

[Ayn_Randian]

If you can't see to the bottom of that, then just shut the fuck up.

Fuck off, superstud...what was he supposed to, divine the fact you were referencing "classical system-building metaphysics" when you said "metaphysics". The way you presented it was a lie, or at least a misrepresentation.

Be a man and own the fuck up to it already.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I don't see it as word-gaming, I see it as holding you to the same standard you're holding to others: to be precise in their definitions."

You're just bullshitting.

Word gaming is exactly what it is. especially in the light of this sort of forum and exchange -- which is rather similar to some Friday afternoon happy-hour excursion that goes horribly off track and holds over into Sunday.

When I actually issue a formal definition of any concepts I've used (because the wide-scope, big-picture context is insufficient), you'll know it.

Now, you may have not ever stopped to consider the very crucial aspect of context, and how definitions are actually secondary in importance. but it cannot be overstated. Context is very nearly everything.

And this is what the others do, as the intellectual parasites they are. They lie in wait, until they spot something where they can shift or drop context, or they'll exploit the hint of an ambiguity, making Friar Ockham roll over in his grave, in order to create a problem where none existed or needed to exist.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Billy honestly think that metaphysics hasn't been discussed in philosophy for 100 years"

Keep propping up the fraud. Billy said they have dismissed it, not that they have never discussed it, aren't aware of it, or have even wrote about it.

In fact, dismissal implies the exact opposite.

[GinSlinger]

Now, you may have not ever stopped to consider the very crucial aspect of context, and how definitions are actually secondary in importance. but it cannot be overstated. Context is very nearly everything.

Physician, heal thyself. This is a libertarian blog, not an Ayn Rand fan club, or an anarcho-capitalist howler. You, and I mean all of you, have ignored context from the minute you arrived. There are many, many different roads to libertarianism, and only one goes through your beloved Rand. So, when you come to this board, you best be prepared to recognize some context.

Context! How rich to get a lecture on context from one of the tin drummers.

[Richard Nikoley]

"To "dismiss" is to send away, if philosophy (as a study) dismissed metaphysics, it means they sent it away, not that they dismissed it as "an acceptable . . . ideology."

Yea, that's one fuck of a lot to hang the label "liar" on.

[Ayn_Randian]

Richard - all that is a fancy way of saying you think we should have divined that "metaphysics" meant "classical system-building metaphysics".

[GinSlinger]

Sorry, Risky, you lose points for reading comprehension again. Implication != connotation != denotation. Billy Budd here missed two of the three, and when directed to his error refuses to admit, thus perpetuating the fraud.

Say it with me, words have meaning beyond what is inside your head. This is how we are able to communicate with each other.

[GinSlinger]

You don't get it, do you Ricky?

philosopher(s): specific
philosophy (, school of): general

Billy Budd took the specific and applied it to the general. His reasoning lacks, or his is a liar. Which is it? Did he purposefully corrupt his argument? Or is he unable to construct and argument? And if the later (thus apparently freeing him from the mantle of liar), why does he present himself as someone knowledgeable in philosophy (back to liar)?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Now, you may have intended to say "metaphysics=classical system-building metaphysics and/or philosophies derived from or allied to them," but you didn't."

"...you may have intended to say..."

This means that you're calling him out as a liar was a purposeful fraud on your part, or that you now understand that you were completely mistaken when you called him that.

If the former, then you do deserve your nose broken. If the later, then given the gravity of it it's you who owes Billy a very sincere apology.

[GinSlinger]

What he meant to say is irrelevant. I don't mean to have you under the state, doesn't change the fact that you still blame it on me.

Is/ought problem here.

[Kyle Bennett]

Word gaming is exactly what it is.

"When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

Obfuscation is a life-and-death requirement for them.

[VM]

"If the former, then you do deserve your nose broken."

the petulant, childish urge to violence is definitely out of the context of many on this thread.

so is the misogynistic humor that the same advocates of violence seemed to demonstrate.

Now, how is it again that any of you can claim non coercion? or is it all about chasing your rhetorical fucking tails around, while yelling and threatening (or endorsing) harm to those who don't share your narrow, dogmatic (, ever-changing??) definitions.

mein gott.

it's gone from funni to absolutely fucking DUNDEROOO pathetic to see how violence is your refuge. (while pretending to be staving off fraud)

weak ass shit, that. cowardly, too.

[GinSlinger]

Don't know if you intended it Kyle (you seem the one most likely open to rational discussion), but you just proved my point. So long as Billy Budd and Ricky continue to hide and evade their definitions, it is the rational side that is disadvantaged.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I guess you don't remember backtracking from defining celestial bodies as metaphysical. I'll jog your memory:"

I didn't know what you referring to. That could be becasue I have not, if fact, "backtracked."

Me: My apologies. Since you weren't grasping the distinction between the metaphysical and man mad, I figured I'd fudge and take a baby step. I had no reason to think that a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical wouldn't just be a bit too much.

What I did was to acknowledge a distinction. If I had backtracked, I'd have acknowledged that it was an essential distinction. It wasn't, and it's not. In essence, in a discussion primarily about cars in general, I acknowledge to you that, yea, there are red cars.

"Then, you went back to defining the sun, moon, and stars (celestial bodies) as metaphysical."

That's false. I identified them as being a part of or pertaining to the whole of physical things that constitute the metaphysically given, and in the context of the contrast I provided, I was contrasting them to the man-made. And again, anyone in a libertarian forum ought to have some familiarity with Rand's emphasis on the metaphysical vs. the man made.

Now, I really don't object to you or anyone not getting exactly what I was getting at, and I certainly don't claim to be the best, brightest, and clearest. I do my best to get what I mean across and I almost always am happy to elaborate (until it becomes clear it's pointless).

But you're quite happy, seemingly, with any little bit of imperfect clarity you can latch onto. You're not seeking understanding, but attempting to obliterate it. All for crowd pleasing.

"Here's it simply put: Do you believe that the sun, moon, and stars are metaphysical or physical?.

It's not what I believe. It's what's self evident. They are physical objects belonging to the set of physical objects that make up the metaphysically given (contrasted to man made), making up the principle objects that give rise to metaphysics (the study of their nature and existence).

[Ayn_Randian]

Obfuscation is a life-and-death requirement for them.

That must be why you're so desperately trying to obfuscate what went down here.

If the former, then you do deserve your nose broken.

christ you people are pieces of work. You break his nose, I break your fucking nose. Isn't that how this whole anarchist system works, anyway? Friends defending friends?

Say it with me, words have meaning beyond what is inside your head.

Quite...Fucking...True.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
Patrick, do you pay your income taxes?

I pay my electric bill, but I'm not sure about "my" income taxes. I do know that I pay at least half of everything I earn to people who threaten me with jail time. That's about 30% to the people who call themselves "the Federal government," 5% to the people who call themselves "the state of Georgia," and 15.3% into sham pension and medical funds called "Social Security" and "Medicare" respectively.

Sure, yeah yeah, break out the violins, join the crowd, we all pay it, I know. The point I am making consistently is that the threat of force should be removed.

As you may recall, "In a fully free society, taxation-or, to be exact, payment for governmental services-would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government-the police, the armed forces, the law courts-are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance."

Now what is the practical result of removing the threat of force from government financing? Well, consider what would happen if government ran grocery stores the way they now run schools. People would talk about "moving to a good neighborhood" where the grocery stores were better, and they would attend Grocery Board meetings and argue about which foods were appropriate to include on the shelves. They would tax property owners to pay the grocery bills of the entire "community," even if those property owners elected to shop at "private stores." People on this thread would argue that eliminating public grocery stores is reckless because we need a "well-fed citizenry," and what about the poor?

It would be a horrible mess, just like the mess coming down your throats in the medical service industry.

But wait! some may ask -- what about roads? The book Voluntary City discusses how some 19th century communities financed roads (and I use the word "finance" deliberately). A road-building company would sell shares in the proposed road. We are not talking about toll roads here -- these were not shares in some profit-making enterprise throwing off regular dividends. These were simply people "chipping in" and literally voting with their dollars, with the only ultimate benefit being the existence of the road itself.

But wait! some may ask -- what about the free rider problem? The answer is: there were free riders. Get used to it. If your business model can't stand up to the free-rider problem, don't come running to me -- I'm not your consultant.

Now in a fully free society, what would I expect to pay? First off, I would keep the 15.3% for myself. Second, I would lop off a hearty portion of the 30% Fed part because I don't want to subsidize milk and corn farmers and other people's prescriptions. I could pay for the courts if and when I used the courts. Physical security could be financed through something akin to insurance. Thus for example it might be economical to install 50-cal gun batteries around the island of Manhattan.

What would I expect when I drove out on a road? I would expect to pay somehow. After all, that road is not my property, and to avoid trespassing I must obtain the owner's consent. How might I obtain that? Perhaps by purchasing a little sticker I attach to the rear of the car. Sounds a lot like registration, doesn't it?

I don't expect goods and services to be free in a fully free society, I just expect them to be produced by free people. Deliberate, persistent, and incorrigible free-riders would be exposed as the scum that they are.

If you think the free-rider issue would be a problem in a voluntarily financed government, just take a look at what a monumental problem free-riders are now in this coercively funded government. In fact, virtually the entire system is designed to satisfy the demands of free-riders.

[Richard Nikoley]

"This is a libertarian blog..."

That's the meta-context.

...not an Ayn Rand fan club, or an anarcho-capitalist howler"...

Which is precisely and specifically the sub-context of the whole thread, and you you delight in dropping so you can perpetuate your crowd-pleasing, parasiticism.

[Ayn_Randian]

They are physical objects belonging to the set of physical objects that make up the metaphysically given (contrasted to man made)

Wait, what? You mean that man isn't metaphysically given? That he exists outside of metaphysics? And I am sure you didn't mean that, but if man exists in existence, then what sense does it make to contrast his artifacts from the metaphysically given?

[Kyle Bennett]

GinSlinger,

I didn't intend it, and I didn't do it. I was referring to you. You've done all you can to obscure plain meaning, and to steer the conversation into a jello-pit of non-essantials.

You mistake definition for meaning and language for concepts. You'd rather debate the text of what Billy asserted than the meaning of it. Because what it means is something you can't handle. Not only your political strategy, but your whole belief system depends on, as I've been saying from almost my first post here, being "persuasive to many Califorians".

Rather than persuade them that you are right, you have to persuade them to agree with you. Persuading them that you are right relies on a metaphysics of reality as primary to point to self-evident truths on which you can build an argument.

But since you've bought into a century of philosophy that has dismissed metaphysics, expending millions of words on the subject in order to do so, you have no such truths to point to. You are left with language instead of concepts, definitions instead of meaning, and so you cannot seek proof, you can only seek agreement - arbitrarily agreed upon definitions expressed in arbitrarily shared language.

And these last hundred or more posts on Billy's text, pointedly avoiding his meaning, have been nothing but an exercise in evading the fundamental mistake that you are now so heavily invested in that you cannot imagine starting over from scratch.

But thanks for the compliment, I'll take it at face value.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Billy Budd took the specific and applied it to the general."

He absolutely did. He made a generalization, one which could have merit (valid generalizations are exceedingly valuable, if you can identify them and they hold up -- saves lots and lots of time).

You missed an opportunity to perhaps gain some insight by asking why he'd make such a sweeping generalization.

But you weren't interested in any insight, were you, parasite?

[GinSlinger]

Richard, seriously, co back and look at what all you have written on metaphysics here. You are presenting a number of definition for metaphysics. Choose one and stick with it. You know what Kyle said, are you trying to obfuscate so that the irrational win? We rational thinkers don't like it. That's why we call you out on it.

You have built your house upon sand . . . best shore up your foundation before it collapses around you.

[Richard Nikoley]

"What he meant to say is irrelevant. I don't mean to have you under the state, doesn't change the fact that you still blame it on me."

You don't have me under the state. I don't hold you individually responsible in the slightest.

Neither do I blame you for it, nor have I suggested any such thing. I might criticize you for helping to support it (if you do), but unless you could realistically get it off my back and refused to do so, it would be presumptuous, unfair, and too projecting to pin it on you.

[GinSlinger]

Ricky wrote: "He absolutely did. He made a generalization, one which could have merit (valid generalizations are exceedingly valuable, if you can identify them and they hold up -- saves lots and lots of time)." emphasis added.

Could have, but didn't. Is/ought. He knew it when he wrote it that it had no merit. All he had to do was define his terms.

[Richard Nikoley]

"the petulant, childish urge to violence is definitely out of the context of many on this thread."

Well VM, your problem is that you pretend to morality, but you're concrete bound.

Had ginslinger stolen Billy's car you'd not be shocked for one second if I said he deserved to get his nose broken. But he attempts to destroy something far more valuable to someone like Billy and you simply fail to grasp the import of it.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Wait, what? You mean that man isn't metaphysically given?"

Read it again: "belonging to."

Get it? I'm happy to clarify further.

[Ayn_Randian]

But he attempts to destroy something far more valuable to someone like Billy and you simply fail to grasp the import of it.

First of all, by refusing to own up to the fact that he thought we should all be mind-readers, Billy is destroying his own reputation right now.

Had ginslinger stolen Billy's car you'd not be shocked for one second if I said he deserved to get his nose broken

What the fuck are you playing at, Miss Cleo? You have no idea what VM would think would be the appropriate punishment, do you? Too bad the rest of us we didn't pay for that course in mind-reading like you did, Richard, otherwise we would have known what special brand of metaphysics Billy was talking about AND we'd know what VM was thinking, just like you do!

you special boy!

[Richard Nikoley]

"what sense does it make to contrast his artifacts from the metaphysically given?"

Well, if you need to ask, and I frankly find it mystifying that you do, you seriously can think of no context in which it's important to consider essential differences between mountains and skyscrapers?

[Ron Good]

This is a libertarian blog, not an Ayn Rand fan club, or an anarcho-capitalist howler

Ginslinger: Give us a fucking break. I've been hanging in formal and informal libertarian circles since maybe the mid-70s. I had zero trouble discerning *exactly* what Billy meant, and discerning it in an instant, especially given the libertarian context of this blog.

Don't go claiming your fabulous familiarity with philosophic literature and libertarian thinking and claim at the same time you aren't aware that Billy's point (exactly as he meant it) is a widely held view in this arena.

In fact, your own references to anarcho-capitalism and Ayn Rand (neither of which is uncommon subject matter in libertarian circles) proves it. *You* are familiar enough to know exactly what he meant.

You've been consistently nit-picking for brownie points, and you're still nit-picking for brownie points--and it's fucking transparent.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You are left with language instead of concepts, definitions instead of meaning, and so you cannot seek proof, you can only seek agreement - arbitrarily agreed upon definitions expressed in arbitrarily shared language."

What a damn nutshell, Kyle. Excellent.

[Richard Nikoley]

"You are presenting a number of definition for metaphysics."

Kyle: "You are left with language instead of concepts, definitions instead of meaning, and so you cannot seek proof, you can only seek agreement - arbitrarily agreed upon definitions expressed in arbitrarily shared language."

I have presented no definitions. I've told you what I mean by it and have given a number of examples. But I get it. You're not really capable of meaning, or at least you try to avoid it like the plague.

[GinSlinger]

Had ginslinger stolen Billy's car you'd not be shocked for one second if I said he deserved to get his nose broken

Had Billy taken better care of his "car," by say "not leaving it running, with the keys in it, and unlocked, and a sign that said 'free car'" then there wouldn't be a "theft."

Billy set himself up as an authority, made a statement using a special "insider only" definition of the most critical word, then offered no retraction.

As I said earlier, you cannot defraud a bankrupt man.

What if I said right now, "what I meant to say is that Billy has clouded the issue by using a invalid definition for a common word?" Would that make any difference now?

Cause I didn't mean to say the above. I choose my words with far more intellectual clarity than Billy has.

[Ayn_Randian]

Get it? I'm happy to clarify further.

No. You said that man-made objects stand in contrast (buildings) to the metaphysically given physical objects (sun and moon). I'm trying to figure out why that is.

Why do you draw a distinction between metaphysically given objects and man-made ones? After all, if man metaphysically exists, so do his objects.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Could have, but didn't."

You're wrong.

Or, in your style: liar!

[Richard Nikoley]

"First of all, by refusing to own up to the fact that he thought we should all be mind-readers, Billy is destroying his own reputation right now."

Billy most certainly demands that each one of you be mind readers, and it's quite observant of you to get to that essence.

Now, can you tell me whose mind Billy wants you to read?

[Richard Nikoley]

"You have no idea what VM would think would be the appropriate punishment, do you?"

Do you seriously not know what I mean by that, or do you just want to obfuscate?

[Kyle Bennett]

What if I said right now, "what I meant to say is that Billy has clouded the issue by using a invalid definition for a common word?" Would that make any difference now?

Actually, yes.

So since you now understand what Billy meant (setting aside the question of how accurately he stated it), what do you think of the state of metaphysics in modern philosophy as compared or contrasted to Aristotelian-based metaphysical approaches?

[Richard Nikoley]

"No. You said that man-made objects stand in contrast (buildings) to the metaphysically given physical objects (sun and moon). I'm trying to figure out why that is."

Then try to figure it out. The fact is that they do. I have no difficulty seeing the value in the distinction, but whether a distinction exists or not is a matter that's so obvious and self-evident that'd I'd really be at a loss to explain it. It would be like trying to describe "blue."

Maybe Earnest or Kyle can help.

"if man metaphysically exists, so do his objects"

How do his objects exist?

[Ayn_Randian]

Now, can you tell me whose mind Billy wants you to read?

Now who's dropping the connotative definition of words! Quit playing games.

Do you seriously not know what I mean by that, or do you just want to obfuscate?

Yeah, what you meant was "VM, you're too dumb to understand that Billy's reputation is more important to him than physical property"

Yeah, we got it, dude, that doesn't mean that VM thinks anybody's nose should be broken in either case.

[Kyle Bennett]

How do his objects exist?

This might be the point where they go on about denying free will, so that everything, including this entire thread, is metaphysically given.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Had Billy taken better care of his "car," by say "not leaving it running, with the keys in it, and unlocked, and a sign that said 'free car'" then there wouldn't be a "theft.""

And Billy didn't invite you to call him a liar.

[GinSlinger]

Show me where he said that Richard. Show it to me. He didn't say that, that's why you can't find it.

Fine, I've refrained from profanity long enough. You are asking for linguistic relativism. You don't want me to focus on what the words mean, but what Billy wants the words to mean. I can't judge Billy because he shares a different understanding of language. Fine! You can have fucking relativism, just don't bring it around here under the banner of "Objectivism." You want to separate the world into man made and natural? Fine, just don't call the natural "metaphysical," call it what is is fucking PHYSICAL. Now, if you want to discuss the "meaning" of mountain, then we can get into the metaphysical--you know the post physical.

Relativism, shit man, you are crazy if you can really be digging that.

Try this: "The trees of America are dying at an alarming rate from a fungal infection. They will soon all be dead." See, lie. But if I had said "The Elm trees of America . . . " I would be factually correct. To require you to insert Elm on your own is intellectually dishonest.

Fucking bunch of relativists.

Now, on to why you understand what Bill was saying, but others weren't. You familiar with Venn diagrams? Well, you [the Billy Budd Tuff Guyz] are a dot, the size of a period, in the middle of a circle, the size of bottle cap [anarcho-capitalists], inside of a circle the size of an orange [Objectivists], inside of a circle the size of a basketball [libertarians] . . . inside of a circle the size of the world. Don't you get it? That you've read Billy's thoughts for 15 years is meaningless tot he rest of the world. Buck up and face it. You're meaningless here even.

[Richard Nikoley]

"As I said earlier, you cannot defraud a bankrupt man."

Wonderful bromide, but ultimately meaningless in a discussion like this.

It's tantamount to claiming that the only things that can be stolen are physical objects.

[Ayn_Randian]

I have no difficulty seeing the value in the distinction, but whether a distinction exists or not is a matter that's so obvious and self-evident that'd I'd really be at a loss to explain it. It would be like trying to describe "blue."

No it wouldn't - blue is a concept that is derived from percepts of like-minded objects. How do you perceive that something is man-made versus metaphysically given?

Is man metaphysically given? Yes.

Are man's minds metaphysically given? Yes.

Would the products of his mind, therefore, be metaphysically given? I don't know, you tell me.

[GinSlinger]

And Billy didn't invite you to call him a liar.

He most certainly did, to not point it out would have been to empower him as a liar.

Kyle, close, but you forgot to read the whole post, sometimes, like in murder mysteries, the end counts.

Saying that Billy meant something he didn't say is dishonest, just as saying what he did say was.

[VM]

"Well VM, your problem is that you pretend to morality, but you're concrete bound.

Had ginslinger stolen Billy's car you'd not be shocked for one second if I said he deserved to get his nose broken. But he attempts to destroy something far more valuable to someone like Billy and you simply fail to grasp the import of it."

really?

I'd think that?

and no - my objection is the childish violence.

The rest of what you're saying is incorrect. And you'd have no way of knowing that.

But you certainly showing that you are quick to advocate violence and coercion and bullying.

[Ayn_Randian]

This might be the point where they go on about denying free will

Isn't the onus on the person making the assertion that a thing exists (in this case, free will) to prove that thing does in fact exist?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Yeah, what you meant was "VM, you're too dumb to understand that Billy's reputation is more important to him than physical property"

Close and partial, so why the completely irrelevant diversion? Clearly I cannot know VMs precise value system or how he'd react to every little thing, but the way I expressed it is quite common to do and essentially means that a reasonable person (you're welcome to exclude VM) would not find it odd that a victim of car theft would want to break the nose of the thief.

I daresay that most would find more extreme measures perfectly acceptable. They used to hang horse thieves. And you know what? I've never lost an ounce of sleep over it, even though I object to the state's death penalty and most of the way it prosecutes crime. That's a separate matter from caring about criminals who do harm to people.

[Kyle Bennett]

GS, I did read all the words in the post. I was being uncharacteristically charitable by giving you an opportunity to not have to regret them.

You're throwing good money after bad at this point, perpetuating your lie in order to protect a broken premise.

[Kyle Bennett]

Isn't the onus on the person making the assertion that a thing exists (in this case, free will) to prove that thing does in fact exist?

Wait... no... are you implying that you actually intend to deny it?

Holy crap, I thought I was joking.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Show me where he said that Richard."

Said what? Seriously.

"You are asking for linguistic relativism."

Nope.

"You don't want me to focus on what the words mean, but what Billy wants the words to mean."

I want to to focus on what I mean, what Kyle, Ernest, Ron, and Billy mean, and you do that by examining the context in which they say what they say, with a secondary reference to definition.

Since the nerve being hit (finally, maybe some progress awaits) was caused by Kyle, I'll let him clarify. He's way better at this sort of thing than I.

[Ayn_Randian]

Wait... no... are you implying that you actually intend to deny it?

I'm asking you to prove it, is all.

Not only that, but there's a question pending on why the distinction is made between planets and buildings, given that one is metaphysically given and the other is a product of the metaphysically given.

[Richard Nikoley]

"No it wouldn't - blue is a concept that is derived from percepts of like-minded objects. How do you perceive that something is man-made versus metaphysically given?"

Unless you want to speculate about advanced space aliens or man made things specifically engineered to be indistinguishable from natural, I don't see the point.

"Would the products of his mind, therefore, be metaphysically given? I don't know, you tell me."

No. That is, no, they are not metaphysically given (they are man made), not no I won't tell you.

[Richard Nikoley]

"He most certainly did"

You know very well what I mean, in the context of that 'free car' sign. Rather than just let it go, you've got to see if you can score another brownie point from the peanut gallery.

[GinSlinger]

I want to to focus on what I mean, what Kyle, Ernest, Ron, and Billy mean, and you do that by examining the context in which they say what they say, with a secondary reference to definition.

Relativism man, that's relativism.

"You gotta put slavery in the South into the context of the time. See? Now that wasn't so bad a system, was it?"

And if you think that "metaphysics=classical system-building metaphysics and/or philosophies derived from or allied to them," you need to go back to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and reread the section on categories.

[Ayn_Randian]

a reasonable person (you're welcome to exclude VM) would not find it odd that a victim of car theft would want to break the nose of the thief.

Isn't your definition of a reasonable person your subjective opinion in this case? That is, you would find it reasonable for a person to want to hurt another person for transgressions.

Do you think that actually following through on what you think GinSlinger deserves is reasonable as well?

[GinSlinger]

You know very well what I mean, in the context of that 'free car' sign.

Now who can't detect metaphor?

Said what? Seriously.

Whatever he supposedly said that allowed you to write this

[Richard Nikoley]

"really?

I'd think that?"

Not necessarily (you could be a pansy ass, I suppose), but as such an expression is very common in conversation, I'm quite sure that you understand the point, which was laid out by AR.

[Ayn_Randian]

That is, no, they are not metaphysically given (they are man made)

So man's mind is a metaphysical given, but the products from it are not?

Why?

[GinSlinger]

Because they're not AR, don't you get it?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Isn't the onus on the person making the assertion that a thing exists (in this case, free will) to prove that thing does in fact exist?"

Not really, because he'll either do it, or he won't. We'll see what's been determined once it's happened.

I can't wait to see what I'm going to post tonight. Or even if I'm going to post! Sure hope I don't toss my new Mac down the trash chute. That'd really suck if I did that. Of course, I won't know if that'd such until after I did or didn't throw it down there, and see whether I'm determined to be happy or sad about what I did or didn't do.

I wonder if I'm going to walk the dogs at 3:30...

[Kyle Bennett]

I'll let [Kyle] clarify. He's way better at this sort of thing than I.

Well, thanks. But I've clarified all I care to on the matter of GinSlinger's false assertions. He's slippery as a greased pig, and I don't want to get my shirt dirty. He's not looking for clarification, but for further handholds from which to continue trying to tear it all down. The progress you see coming is illusory.

AR,

I'm asking you to prove it, is all.

That you're asking is all the proof needed. Don't even bother any further, it ain't gonna happen.

[Richard Nikoley]

"given that one is metaphysically given and the other is a product of the metaphysically given."

There you go. You made one distinction all by yourself.

[Richard Nikoley]

...key word: product.

[Ayn_Randian]

I can't wait to see what I'm going to post tonight. Or even if I'm going to post!...

All that right there is a very childish send-up of determinism and all of the subsets and countersets present in that debate.

Congratulations! You've demonstrated your ignorance.

So man's mind is a metaphysical given, but the products from it are not?

Why?

The Question Abides.

[Ayn_Randian]

There you go. You made one distinction all by yourself.

Hmm...well, I could also say that anthills are produced by ants. And dams are produced by beavers.

[VM]

"you could be a pansy ass, I suppose"

by your definition? general definition?

I'd prefer to think "sloppy candy ass", personally. It has a much better ring.

But I suppose I could be a pansy ass. Periwinkle ass, too.

"but as such an expression is very common in conversation"

it is? do you mean pansy ass or "broken nose"?

*giggles* AR said, "beavers".

[Ayn_Randian]

And bees form honeycombs...and wolves form packs...

I could do this all. day. long.

You would argue that anthills are metaphysically given, right? Because evolution formed ants formed anthills.

Why not evolution formed man formed buildings?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Relativism man, that's relativism."

Nope. You're talking about something completely different.

"You gotta put slavery in the South into the context of the time. See? Now that wasn't so bad a system, was it?"

Not what anyone's talking about.

This is all hand waving anyway. Strawman. You know what everyone means, which is THE POINT. Even if you think they're wrong, which you're welcome to do, you know what they mean.

Your interest is not in discussing how they may be wrong, but in shifting and dropping the context that establishes their meaning.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Isn't your definition of a reasonable person your subjective opinion in this case?"

Yep. And I'm quite comfortable with it.

"That is, you would find it reasonable for a person to want to hurt another person for transgressions."

Too many variables for me to make a general statement about that, but it's reasonable, in my view, to break a guy's nose for stealing your car, or for calling you a liar without any moral cause or particularly to perpetuate a conscious fraud.

[Ayn_Randian]

I HAVE always wondered why Objectivists posit that contextualism! = relativism.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR, you're channeling Jim Taggart again. You don't want to end up a quivering heap of protoplasm next to Floyd's car battery again, do you?

[Ayn_Randian]

it's reasonable, in my view, to break a guy's nose for stealing your car, or for calling you a liar without any moral cause or particularly to perpetuate a conscious fraud.

Therefore, it was reasonable in VM's view to call you a violent and childish.

Why is he a "pansy ass" and you're Mr. Correct on this?

for calling you a liar without any moral cause or particularly to perpetuate a conscious fraud

Nice try. You're still losing the argument to GinSlinger. You haven't answered how "metaphysics" should have equaled "classical system-building metaphysics" in any context.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Now who can't detect metaphor?"

Oh, so 'free car' was a metaphor, eh? Interesting, because I didn't notice that when I first glossed over the thing and I wrote a response I had to back off from explicitly because of that.

So now it's back on:

"Had Billy taken better care of his "car," by say "not leaving it running, with the keys in it, and unlocked, and a sign that said 'free car'" then there wouldn't be a "theft."

Those quotes around theft are quite telling. So leaving it running, unlocked, with keys in means that it's not really "theft" if someone steals it. You've essentially, metaphorically, left a 'free car' sign in the window.

Is that it?

[Richard Nikoley]

...see, GS, that's what honestly trying to determine what someone actually means is all about. You ought to try it, sometime.

[Ayn_Randian]

AR, you're channeling Jim Taggart again. You don't want to end up a quivering heap of protoplasm next to Floyd's car battery again, do you?

Weak. I'll chalk that up as non-responsive.

You guys have a lot of questions to catch up on. I suggest you get cracking.

Let's start with this: is it natural for man to form governments?

After all: "A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature." - Ayn Rand.

[Kyle Bennett]

I'll chalk that up as non-responsive.

That was my intent. Can't you take a hint?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Whatever he supposedly said that allowed you to write this"

I was in response to this:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123957.html#857127

I'm saying that you're wrong that his generalization does not have merit. It does. If I were you, though, I could just call you a liar for asserting it doesn't have merit.

[Ayn_Randian]

Let's summarize the homework for our crew:

1. Anthills are products of ants. Anthills are metaphysically given. Beaver dams are metaphysically given. Why aren't the products of that animal known as "man" metaphysically given.

2. Does free will exist? If so, prove it please. And this "That you're asking is all the proof needed." (that is, claiming that I did I thing proves free will) is something we call "begging the question". I have free will 'cause I asked. I asked 'cause I have free will. This is known as a "lame argument".

3. Can a thing act in contradiction to its nature? If so, how does that square with Ayn Rand's view that a thing cannot? If not, why is it not natural for humans to form governments? After all, things cannot act in contradiction to their natures.

Good night all! I hope you have some answers for me.

[Richard Nikoley]

...I have to get out of here. Looks like it's ending up that I'm gonna walk the dogs. Not that I had any free will in the matter.

[Richard Nikoley]

"So man's mind is a metaphysical given, but the products from it are not?"

I can't say for sure whether man's mind is metaphysically given, or not. Certainly his brain is.

I tend think the capacity for "man's mind" is a given, but I don't see it as given that man will develop and use it to its capacity, or use it to produce anything at all.

That's all up to him.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Hmm...well, I could also say that anthills are produced by ants. And dams are produced by beavers."

They have no choice in the matter.

[Ron Good]

Ginslinger, you're being disingenuous *and you know it*

You didn't start out by asking Billy to clarify, being that you were genuinely concerned you or other folks might misunderstand Billy. (even though--as I've demonstrated--you, especially with your ardently pedantic posturing, had even more reason to know exactly what he meant than some others here--and I'm quite sure you did know, actually.)

You straight off called him a liar, instead.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I could do this all. day. long."

Me too.

Hey, if you want to blur distinction and differences between man and his pets and zoo captives all day long, be my guest.

If you see no difference between yourself and them, you leave me with little choice but to agree with you.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Why is he a "pansy ass" and you're Mr. Correct on this?"

He's welcome to his opinion and judgment. He may not be welcome to steal a car or call someone a liar without really no-shit having his ducks carefully in a row. Bad things might happen, and and reasonable person ought to understand that.

Put it this way: there is a damn good reason why he, you, or anyone else doesn't go around indiscriminately calling people liars TO THEIR FACE.

You know very well why. Billy showed you why you'll do it here, or cheer lead someone who does, but it's be the last thing you do face to face unless you're really, really damn sure you have cause.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Nice try. You're still losing the argument to GinSlinger."

Oh bla bla bla.

Kyle says I'm not. So what?

[Richard Nikoley]

"You haven't answered how "metaphysics" should have equaled "classical system-building metaphysics" in any context."

Only ad infinitum.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Let's start with this: is it natural for man to form governments?

After all: "A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature." - Ayn Rand."

Let's dispense with it.

Man's nature is one of free will, which means he can act contrary to it. She said that too.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Let's summarize the homework"

Go fuck yourself.

[Kyle Bennett]

Kyle says I'm not. So what?

I can definitely confirm that I say you're not.

"Let's summarize the homework"

Go fuck yourself.

Will that be on the test?

[highnumber]

Brilliant! The lot of you - brilliant!

Consider this a rehearsal. We'll do it next week with sword and torches and cream pies.

And, VM, paint your sorry candy ass like a pansy for us.

[A CHUBBY LITTLE GIRL]

RICHARD NIKOLEY, YOU HAVE REACHED YOUR LEGAL POSTING LIMIT. YOU HAVE LIKE 300 IN A ROW THERE. STOP IT. CONDENSE.

[Richard Nikoley]

For AR, on free will, and this will probably be the extent of what you get because it's a pointless exercise. I know you probably figured I take free will from a mystical sort-of standpoint (as many do), but that wouldn't square with my atheism and materialism. I.e., you might, though I'm admittedly not sure, need to check your premises and/or assumptions.

I recalled that we had once had some discussion about it on my blog, comments to a href="http://www.honestylog.com/root/2006/11/going_one_god_f.html">this post.

Of particular note is one of Kyle's comments, quoting something I had written:

Me: And even if there isn't technically "free will," then at the very least our deterministic responses to infinitely complex stimuli are so far beyond our ability to predict that it's hard to imagine such a distinction being meaningful.

Kyle: It's not meaningful. The argument over "actual" free will is an out of context floating abstraction. The only context that matters in the question is the one within my consciousness, and from in here I perceive free will directly. Whether, from some arbitrary external context, it is actually free will or just massively complex determinism doesn't matter. Either way, I will still act on the basis of free will (either because it is actually there, or because I'm "programmed" to believe it), and acting - and thus thinking - from any other basis would be a contradiction.

In my interactions with other people, I can't directly access their consciousness, I can only observe their response to stimuli, which includes the words I say to them. If someone acts in a way fully consistent with consciousness and free will, I can treat them as if they possess those attributes, whether they actually do or not in some other context. As the Turing Test pre-supposes, anything, whether a person, an animal, or a computer, is conscious - in the context of my interaction with them - so long as I can't tell the difference. Determining whether and to what extent their behavior is consistent with consciousness and free will is part of my duty to judge other people and all things, and any other context is irrelevant, in principle, to me.

[Richard Nikoley]

damn.

This post.

[Jake Boone]

It's been a long day at work, so I've been neglecting this astounding monolith of a thread.

So if I forget to respond to any outstanding questions/requests/whatever pointed my way, you'll have to remind me. I think I was in the middle of something about this:

Your fallacy is in the second part of #2, continued in #3. Your thoughts, rational ones anyway, are a product of your concepts applied to your perception of reality. A reputation is made of other people's thoughts applied to their perception of you.

That "perception of you" is still theirs, however, not yours. You don't, in any way, own your reputation. I don't see how it's possible to own your reputation under any meaningful definition of the word "own."

Here's a quick thought experiment. Alan is a person who's well thought-of in the community. Bob likes Alan, and thinks highly of him as well -- Bob's thoughts become part of Alan's reputation.

One day, however, Bob meets Carl, a real jerk who reminds him of Alan, and, consciously or not, decides he's been a bit too quick to give Alan his esteem. Bob downgrades his respect for Alan. Now Alan's reputation -- though only the portion of it that resides in Bob's head -- has been negatively affected through no fault of his own.

Under your theory, is Bob liable for Alan's loss of reputation? Has Bob defrauded Alan? What about Carl? His actions caused Alan's reputation to suffer, so is he also liable?

Would your answer change if Bob consciously decided to stop trusting Alan without Carl's input?

(By the way, Billy, if you still want me to call you, feel free to email me your phone number. Mouseover my name, and the address should be apparent.)

[Ernest Brown]

Richard,

"'You don't want me to focus on what the words mean, but what Billy wants the words to mean.'"

"I want to to focus on what I mean, what Kyle, Ernest, Ron, and Billy mean, and you do that by examining the context in which they say what they say, with a secondary reference to definition.

Since the nerve being hit (finally, maybe some progress awaits) was caused by Kyle, I'll let him clarify. He's way better at this sort of thing than I."

Precisely, what they are rejecting is the whole notion of contextual meaning. Billy was fairly obviously using "dismiss" in a contextual meaning similar to this definition (used, as I mentioned above, for clarification):

"3 a: to reject serious consideration of "

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dismiss

not that philosophers "sent away" metaphysics in some sort of weird spacial sense of not writing about it. They are attempting to defend a reading that is farcical.

[Kyle Bennett]

That "perception of you" is still theirs, however, not yours.

But that which they perceive is not. It's still their responsibility to evaluate and integrate their perceptions, but if you attempt to interfere, you've still caused damage.

Bob and Alan: No, it's only Alan's relationship with Bob that has been damaged. If Bob goes around telling everyone else what a jerk Alan is, that's a different story. I addressed this in the part of my original post regarding the withdrawal of mutual consent.

And careful how you use "liable", that usually implies some kind of material recourse, which I've already said is not proper between Bob and Alan. Committing a moral injustice is only addressable morally.

Punching someone in the nose is really more of a moral redress than a material one.

[Jake Boone]

Punching someone in the nose is really more of a moral redress than a material one.

QFWTF.

Our disconnect runs deep.

[Kyle Bennett]

Our disconnect runs deep.

Ya think?

Ponder that, if you care to, and allow yourself to imagine, for just a moment, that both of us arrive at our disconnected conclusions rationally. Not just on this question, but on all the questions above. Do any implications of that jump out at you?

[Kyle Bennett]

And Jake, my biggest hope is that you don't let that just be charity. As the Tom Hanks character said to Private Ryan: "Earn this".

You can take this as condescension, if you like, but it's not.

[highnumber]

I get it! I get it!

[Billy Beck]

Ernest: "They are attempting to defend a reading that is farcical."

You know, earlier, I'd said that I was going to argue all this, but I'm not going to do that. What they're doing is every bit as rotten as "GinSlinger's" original outrage, and they're doing it because it was an outrage.

"Be a man and own the fuck up to it already."

Absolutely not. Never. What that bastard said isn't true, and if he were more than net.educated he would know that, but it doesn't matter. There is not one good reason in the world for accusing me of lying in what I said, which I didn't.

And anyone who stands with him on this thing is completely despicable.

[Ayn_Randian]

You can take this as condescension, if you like, but it's not.

If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and moves like a duck...

[Cin]

Ayn,
Must you play devil's advocate all the way through this thread?

[jimmydageek]

Haven't really been paying attention to H&R the last few days. All I can say about this thread is:

What a bunch of losers!

So, did I miss anything important in the thread?

[jimmydageek]

Really...a 3 day on-line pissing match? WTF?

[jimmydageek]

A fucking Royal Rumble, if you will...

[jimmydageek]

wait...it's from the 14th LOL...5 day on-line royal rumble pissing match...boy oh boy

[Jake Boone]

And Jake, my biggest hope is that you don't let that just be charity. As the Tom Hanks character said to Private Ryan: "Earn this".

AR, was it you who mentioned the thick, creamy frosting of martyrdom all over these guys? Christ.

Kyle, if "typing a 47-word post on the intartubes" is, to you, in any way analogous to "losing a squad of friends in battle," well, that's very interesting.

The idea that you don't consider it condescension is, likewise, very interesting. Your display of self-importance is staggering, or would be, if I hadn't already become somewhat inured to the horrors of the internet.

Your stated ideas do, however, certainly make it difficult to believe that you arrived at your conclusions re: nose-breaking through any process that I would recognize as "rational."

Perhaps you would lay out the rational thought process that led you to describe nose-breaking as "more of a moral redress than a material one." Please start with your definition of "material." Thanks so much.

P.S. Hi, Jimmy!

[The Atomic Fruitbat]

Attention, citizens of Earth!

I have come to witness for myself this truly inspiring thread, this battle of the mighty, this... clash! Of... of... Titans!

Oh, and also Billy.

Remember, kids, eating fruit leads to healthy colons! And healthy colons lead to healthy bowel movements! And healthy bowel movements lead to more room for fruit!

[Billy Beck]

"By the way, Billy, if you still want me to call you,..."

Despicable.

Do you understand?

[Jake Boone]

Does that mean our date is off?

*sniff*

[Ron Good]

Jake: cutting through your sophistry:

If someone damaged your reputation, would you act to repair the damage, or to stop the perpetrator? Why would you, if it wasn't a value *of yours*, a value *to you*?

The phrase "your reputation" or "Bob's reputation" is not just mental shorthand for "the perception other people have of you or Bob"; it's phrased the way it is because it is plainly understood that a reputation is primarily of value to the one it belongs/refers to.

I hate playing the dictionary game, but (because you said a person couldn't own a repuation in any meaningful sense) at Dictionary.com, "own" means FIRST:

of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive)

They thought that definition was meaningful. Were they wrong?

[Richard Nikoley]

"AR, was it you who mentioned the thick, creamy frosting of martyrdom all over these guys? Christ."

Quick "AR!" Give 'im a reach around.

[Jake Boone]

Jake: cutting through your sophistry:

If someone damaged your reputation, would you act to repair the damage, or to stop the perpetrator? Why would you, if it wasn't a value *of yours*, a value *to you*?

I would certainly act to repair the damage to my reputation. But the solution to bad speech is more speech (cliche, but true), not violence. And it doesn't get much more "material" than physically assaulting someone. How would threats of assault, precisely, act to repair your reputation, anyhow? Look at how well that's working out for Billy.

And I have to tell you, this isn't sophistry. It's a little thing I like to call "English." I'd recommend learning it, because your crazy moon language isn't getting the job done.

[Jake Boone]

Why would you, if it wasn't a value *of yours*, a value *to you*?

Oops... left out my response to this bit.

I'd work to repair it because I enjoy the benefits of a good reputation. Of course, I also enjoy looking at the architecture of the old church next door to my house... but that certainly doesn't make it mine.

[Jake Boone]

Quick "AR!" Give 'im a reach around.

Huh. I don't know how you and Billy roll, but that's pretty... well, Freudian.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I would certainly act to repair the damage to my reputation. But the solution to bad speech is more speech (cliche, but true), not violence."

Yung & dum.

Oh, you're so idealistic. Wait until you come across someone who doesn't give a shit about your ideals.

(the 'ol definition of a conservative comes to mind: a leftie who's been mugged.)

It's prescient in the sense that this is the same 'ol saw. Kids meantally masturbating on the Intertubes thinking THEY'RE REALLY ONTO SOMETHING! Ya! Ya!

There's some value to that -- ideas ought to be challenged, even from ignorance or blind idealism -- which amounts to testing them.

Then you learn how very fucking smart grandpa is.

[Jake Boone]

Oh, you're so idealistic. Wait until you come across someone who doesn't give a shit about your ideals.

Oh, I see... nonaggression only applies to other people who follow your own philosophy. Anyone outside of that tiny, tiny group? Preemptive strike is go! Just like in Iraq (right, Billy?)! Woohoo! Anarchocapitalism at its finest!

(I think it's time to start thinking about a "home" for grandpa.)

[Billy Beck]

"Anarchocapitalism at its finest!"

Why can't you deal in facts?

[Jack Lalane]

"Why can't you deal in facts?"

Why do you insist on pretending that's what you're doing?

[Richard Nikoley]

"nonaggression"

See? You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

The reason is that you're still in carbon-copy mode and have no real depth of personal consideration concerning things like "initiation."

It's an interesting study for me, though. I can't say I've yet to meet an "anarchist in training." Usually, because _earning_ the label requires it, anarchists are quick. They soon realize they're all on their own.

You think not? You thing Billy, I, Kyle, Ron or Patrick would have you for a second? You have to have thought it all out -- fucking ALL OF IT -- for yourself because nobody can hold you up.

Maybe you ought to get out of the comfort of your cheerleading squad here for a while. Y'know, ever boy has to leave home sometime if he's ever to be a man.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I think it's time to start thinking about a "home" for grandpa."

Fuck you all to hell. Wasn't that fucking easy? Well, one of my grandpas raised 12 brothers and sisters, brought them from Mormon Idaho to California, paid for their weddings, and saw them off. The other was a German private in WWII who, after the war, brought my dad and his eight brothers and sisters to the Statue of Liberty by ship, and then across the country by bus.

They're both dead now, and I doubt anything you'll ever do in your life will come within a fraction of measure.

Fuck you.

[the rest of humanity]

"You thing Billy, I, Kyle, Ron or Patrick would have you for a second?"

Do you really think anyone here wants to be "had" in any sense by you or your fellow wankers? Are you honestly that self-delusional? You might want to check your own premises, because if they don't start with "Billy, Kyle, Ron, Patrick and I are looked upon with a combination of pity and contempt by anyone with half a brain in their head (probably including both of my dead grandpas, if there's an afterlife)," then they clearly need some serious work.

[Ron Good]

Look at how well that's working out for Billy

I am. It's working out fine for Billy.

And regarding the non-aggression principle and the point about instigation: nothing in the principle precludes defense.

[Jake Boone]

You thing Billy, I, Kyle, Ron or Patrick would have you for a second?

Oh noes!

Hey, how come it took you this long to getting around to insinuating that I want anything to do with your group? You guys claimed that Jennifer lusted after Billy almost immediately. Does she get preferential treatment because she's a woman?

Maybe you ought to get out of the comfort of your cheerleading squad here for a while.

This is especially rich, coming from a guy who has spent the last five days cheerleading here for his BFF Billy, and, furthermore, just can't seem to stop doing so, even at his own blog.

What's that word you like... for someone who just wants to ride someone else's coattails? Oh, yeah. "Second-hander."

You pathetic toady.

(And really, of all the coattails in the world, you pick Billy's? That's a sad, sad story.)

[Billy Beck]

At the very least, he's not in the tank for NORML cutting a deal on extortion.

[Jake Boone]

They're both dead now, and I doubt anything you'll ever do in your life will come within a fraction of measure.

Yay! The "my grandpas are dead heroes (except that one of them actually fought for the Nazis)" sympathy ploy! 100 points!

Of course, you might not have been playing for sympathy, so in that case, replace the above with "Ahoy! Non sequitur off the port bow! 15 points!"

[Jake Boone]

At the very least, he's not in the tank for NORML cutting a deal on extortion.

That conversation is so five days ago.

Today we apparently talk about dead grandpas (yeah, I know, what's up with that?) and whether you can own a reputation.

I gotta tell you, with the exception of the parts owned by your (eight?) cronies, your reputation 'round these parts isn't looking so hot. How're your grandpas?

[Billy Beck]

"That conversation is so five days ago."

That's what you think.

[Ron Good]

Jake: meaning no disrespect implying no intent of malice intent of malice:

Please do not confuse the non-aggression principle with pacifism. It's nothing of the sort.

It's about the right and wrong of it. The person who violates the non-aggression principle, in word or in deed, does not get to choose the response of the victim (that's the properly victim's choice).

What about the law and courts, you might ask? That's only a factor in risk assessment. Permission is for children.

[Jake Boone]

Please do not confuse the non-aggression principle with pacifism. It's nothing of the sort.

I am fully aware of this. I am not a pacifist. I firmly believe in the right of self-defense.

The person who violates the non-aggression principle, in word or in deed, does not get to choose the response of the victim (that's the properly victim's choice).

Someone cuts across the corner of your property. Are you within your rights to charge him with a samurai sword and gut him like a trout?

What if you just think he's going to cut across the corner of your property?

[Billy Beck]

"Someone cuts across the corner of your property. Are you within your rights to charge him with a samurai sword and gut him like a trout?"

Yes.

[Jake Boone]

You're out on your boat, miles from land, fishing with Bob. You decide you don't like Bob, and want him to get off your boat. You withdraw your consent for him to occupy your property. Are you within your rights to pitch him overboard for trespassing?

[Billy Beck]

You really need to go to bed. You're losing your fucking mind.

[Ron Good]

What if you just think he's going to cut across the corner of your property?

Then it's neighbourly to warn him. Have you no common sense?

[Joseph K.]

I have been following this thread from the start (probably not a good use of my time), and I have reached two conclusions.

1. Billy Beck is a liar.
2. Billy Beck is a hypocrite.

I also have the suspicion that Billy Beck is a cheat. More specifically, I suspect he is the sort of person who makes an agreement and intentionally creates ambiguity so he can avoid fulfilling his portion of the bargain by claiming the other party misunderstood the agreement. However, this is just a suspicion.

I will be sure to spread this information should the topic of Mr. Beck ever arise again. I have no use for liars or hypocrites, so I will endeavor to educate others on the true nature of Mr. Beck.

You can call me a coward, a phony (I believe you have a witty little phrase), or even Spiro, but none of those names will change the fact that all this was brought on by Mr. Beck himself. Not even a threat of a punch to the nose will change that, although I expect some of you to try mightily.

Toodles.

[Billy Beck]

"More specifically, I suspect he is the sort of person who makes an agreement and intentionally creates ambiguity so he can avoid fulfilling his portion of the bargain by claiming the other party misunderstood the agreement."

Do you know what I do for a living?

[Billy Beck]

Let me give you a hint: there is no way that I could have done it for thirty years if I were anything that you say. It's about specific performance.

[Jake Boone]

Truck stop hooker?

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[Jake Boone]

Oops. Messed up the blockquote tag. Eh, you get the idea.

[Jack]

Village idiot?

Experimental drug tester?

Truck stop village hooker tester?

Blog troll?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Oh noes!"

Ha. That's what you think, boy.

[smartass sob]

Do you actually DO anything for a living?

[smartass sob]

Oh, cool! I actually got to make a comment on this thread (finally.)

[Richard Nikoley]

"This is especially rich, coming from a guy who has spent the last five days cheerleading here for his BFF Billy, and, furthermore, just can't seem to stop doing so, even at his own blog."

So where's your blog? Yep, straight up. You can find probably another hundred links just like it, out of about 1,500 posts since '93.

Yep, from time to time there's stuff to highlight other than my own stuff.

But most of it, far and wide, is my own stuff and original to me.

You haven't even left your womb, yet.

[Richard Nikoley]

"except that one of them actually fought for the Nazis"

Liar!

Your statement is false, even though I didn't specify that he actually fought, so that makes you a liar.

Liar!

That was easy.

[Ron Good]

Joseph K:

You have stated you believe Billy Beck is a liar and a hypocrite.

I know factually that Billy is neither. It's not my opinion; it's just true.

You don't know me, and you need not believe me, but you might do well to consider the plain situation that I would have no reason in the world to say so if it weren't true.

You can continue to assert the opposite, but the facts will not bear you out. And on the face of things, I think you'd have to agree I have reason and opportunity to know Billy a hell of a lot better than you do. You're misapprehending things badly.

And I'm not lying.

[Billy Beck]

"Do you actually DO anything for a living?"

Let me give you another hint. I work with elements and things with very binary natures from which there is no appeal. Gravity. Time. Electricity.

"Ambiguity." {hah}

People in my business perform or they go flip burgers or sell cars.

[Richard Nikoley]

Ron, there's one principle reason I didn't respond to that entry, and it was the first phrase:

"I have been following this thread from the start"

The company I built over the last 15 years deals with the debt collection industry (i.e., we're on the phone with debt collectors all the time -- thousands per month). I can smell opening posturing bullshit a mile away.

[Ron Good]

I will be sure to spread this information should the topic of Mr. Beck ever arise again

You have no information to spread that backs up what you're saying. All you have is an opinion.

And it's wrong.

[Richard Nikoley]

I note Jake didn't give Billy a call, even after repeated "I WILL CALL."

Big surprise. What a little pussy. I guess B had it right: phonies don't phone.

Y'know, the bit about the grandfathers was really more of a look see than anything, and my original reference to "grandpa being smart" was just a figure of speech following from the yung.dum impression you give off. But their stature is well cemented with me and with my family, so it was no big deal to risk you posting disrespectful crap about two men who accomplished wonders in their lives.

No matter what could happen here in back & forth, it would be completely, totally beyond me to ever speak badly of any of your family, alive or dead, regardless of whether your brought them up relevantly or non sequitur.

Completely and utterly beyond me, and I frankly can't even begin to fathom what it is that bolts someone like you together.

If you and the others are representative of the posters at REASON in general, I can honestly say that it is the most despicable cast of characters in any newsgroup, forum, or blog I've seen in 15 years, and that includes all the commies.

Matt Welch: you need to clean house here. I'll be happy to go, as my language hasn't been stellar, but I'll be happy to do so if you just take out the regular trash around here. It's really piled up.

[Ayn_Randian]

If you and the others are representative of the posters at REASON in general, I can honestly say that it is the most despicable cast of characters in any newsgroup, forum, or blog I've seen in 15 years, and that includes all the commies.

Yep, yet another case of those insular and self-righteous Objectivists I was talking about. You agree politically almost 100% with people, but you find them more despicable than communists. Amazing.

it would be completely, totally beyond me to ever speak badly of any of your family, alive or dead, regardless of whether your brought them up relevantly or non sequitur.

Ahh, I see, so you can never, ever speak ill of a person if they're a member of your tribe, eh? That's reason. That's rational. As if sharing genetic material and a last name should be indicative of your level of respect for a person. Incredible?so, your family can do no wrong?

Matt Welch: you need to clean house here. I'll be happy to go, as my language hasn't been stellar, but I'll be happy to do so if you just take out the regular trash around here. It's really piled up.

If you're happy to go, then then go already. I've been saying that you all should have been banned from the beginning. It took Reason a long, long time to clean house of the acrimony, insults and childish pettiness that used to exist in these pages, and you are your crew managed to bring it all back. And yeah, before you go on and on about how I'm some kind of evil twit for asking for your removal from these fora, remember that this is private property, and you're here at the pleasure of the owners.

[Ron Good]

I've been saying that you all should have been banned from the beginning.

yeah, well...in the meantime...

[Taktix?]

One thousand, three hundred eighty-fifth!

[Ayn_Randian]

yeah, well...in the meantime...

Yeah, fair enough, A is A and all that.

[Kyle Bennett]

"That conversation is so five days ago."

That's what you think.

If there's one thing I'd like to see from these guys, its that they understand that this thread, all 1300+ posts, has never gone seriously off-topic. It would be a stunning realization to them.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

LET'S ALL GET DRUNK AND PLAY PING PONG!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

"I can honestly say that it is the most despicable cast of characters "

NOW NOW.

BEING ONLY ABLE TO SPEAK FOR THIS PARTICULAR MINION, I DEFINITELY AM IN A DESPICABLE CAST OF CHARACTERS.

IMAGINE A CROSS BETWEEN "MODERN MILLIE", "GREASE", "SINGING IN THE RAIN", AND "CAROUSEL" WITH A HEALTHY DOSE OF KEVIN BACON GETTIN STEAMY WITH ZACH BRAFF.

[Ayn_Randian]

If there's one thing I'd like to see from these guys, its that they understand that this thread, all 1300+ posts, has never gone seriously off-topic. It would be a stunning realization to them.

Yea, I somehow sense that you would define the topic braodly enough to make that statement true, but that still doesn't mean it wouldn't be duplicitous of you.

[Kyle Bennett]

I somehow sense that you would define the topic braodly enough to make that statement true,

The topic was and remains the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical premises implied by:

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

[Jake Boone]

I note Jake didn't give Billy a call, even after repeated "I WILL CALL."

You've sure got me there! I didn't call. Of course, I did clear my schedule for the evening and explain how Billy could email me his number, but he flatly refused to do so, and so I don't believe that I'm entirely unjustified in my failure to phone... certainly, no phone number has, even now, appeared in my mailbox. But please, continue pretending this is somehow moral cowardice on my part.

Big surprise. What a little pussy. I guess B had it right: phonies don't phone.

Morally, shouldn't you now be calling Billy a "little pussy"? Remember, he's the one who offered to a) talk to me on the phone, and b) use frequent flier miles to come break my nose. He's reneged on both of those promises, which makes him...

*drumroll*

...a liar.

[highnumber]

The topic was and remains the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical premises implied by:

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

You really do think that, don't you?

[VM]

So what we have hier is:

AR and other Objectivists mixing it up with some Internets Tuff Gaiz.

The ITGs cannot argue for crap, don't know their stuff very well, mix things around, get called on it, and then get indignant. And start the "pussy" comments and threaten violence.

Is this serious? Wellllll. No. AR, Lunch, Gin, Dhex, Jake, and gang were very interesting, fun, and most WOMBY.

Threadwinners. Even without Stevo!

The nose group - if you had actual, good arguments that didn't resort to proboscis pounding, you'd still be point-and-laugh material.

But don't forget. Tomorrow is Hawaiian Shirt day. So you can go ahead and wear a Hawaiian Shirt. And jeans.

Highnumber - are you up for the usual treatment for this thread?

[Kyle Bennett]

You really do think that, don't you?

Is that a roundabout way of admitting that you don't?

[Ayn_Randian]

I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians.

Yeah, about that: you'll note he doesn't endorse the content of the argument, just the tactic. If you read that through the right filter, he could be saying that "Californians are so hopelessly statist that appealing to the strangulation of their State might be what it takes".

You didn't even bother for clarification, did you? As a matter of fact, you read it through your own filter and went on a tantrum about "FOR A MAGAZINE CALLED REASON..." (Everyone drink!).

And FWIW, Billy had this to say about that statement:

"I think about "many Californians", and I'm not surprised."

That is exactly what * could have been saying in the first place. But you didn't even bother to fucking ask him, you went into insular "Objectivist" attack mode.

[Handmaiden to WEIBSKOBOLD]

THE QUESTION REMAINS:

HOW MUCH MORE "KELLY RIPPA" CAN THE INTERNETS TUFF GAIZ TAKE???

[Kyle Bennett]

"Californians are so hopelessly statist that appealing to the strangulation of their State might be what it takes".

That's pretty much how I interpreted it. It's the conclusion: "what it takes", that brings in the damning implications. The only difference in interpretation I can see is one of how strongly it emphasizes the statist character of Cali's, but that doesn't change the implications of "what it takes" - it might even make things worse. It means that instead of being willing to sacrifice yourself to possibly decent people, you're willing to sacrifice yourself to the worst among people. Not that there's any meaningful distinction there.

The rest of the thread has been kind of a "pay it backward", demanding that we recompense you for the sacrifices you've made.

[Jake Boone]

Let me give you another hint. I work with elements and things with very binary natures from which there is no appeal. Gravity. Time. Electricity.

A really kinky truck stop hooker?

(Still not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[highnumber]

Mr Bennett:
I thought it was a rather direct way of asking you if you really thought that, while letting you know that it appeared to me that you did really think that. I'm not sure how I could have been more direct. It should be quite clear to you that I ask that because it is quite clear to me that this thread is about something else entirely.

[Kyle Bennett]

Mr number,

I said it. That's a pretty strong indicator that I do indeed think it. For the record, yes I do. What is "clear" to you is your own problem.

[Ayn_Randian]

It means that instead of being willing to sacrifice yourself to possibly decent people, you're willing to sacrifice yourself to the worst among people.

I am trying to figure out how my Ohioan self would be sacrificing dollars to the people of California if the Fed laid off the MMJ dispensaries. What I'm not having a hard time understanding is that less money would go to the DEA from me. This is a bad thing...how again?

plzsplainkthx.

[Ayn_Randian]

I said it. That's a pretty strong indicator that I do indeed think it.

Yeah, not quite. As we've learned, some people 'round these parts say "metaphysics" and are thinking "classical system-building metaphysics". And further thinks we should have all known that.

[Kyle Bennett]

I am trying to figure out how my Ohioan self would be sacrificing dollars to the people of California

I said to Billy earlier that dollars are the least of it. I said to you that it is sacrificing your self.

Yes, yes, I know you are not involved directly with the California NORML tactics. Yet you are supporting the principle of self-sacrifice. Adjust your concrete referents accordingly.

[Jake Boone]

But [my grandfathers'] stature is well cemented with me and with my family, so it was no big deal to risk you posting disrespectful crap about two men who accomplished wonders in their lives.

For clarification, I read the phrase "how very fucking smart grandpa is" to mean yourself. My mistake; I was thrown by your grandfatherly jowls, I guess.

Seriously, why would I give Shit One about your grandfathers (aside from bemoaning their lack of foresight/contraceptives)?

But seeing you brag that one was on the Nazis' side during WWII was definitely worth the misunderstanding. Kudos on your display of plumage, sir!

[VM]

These Internets Tuff Gaiz are also fond of the word, "concrete".

Me? I like, "toast".

[highnumber]

I'm not the one whose lack of perception is proudly on display here, Mr Bennett.

[Kyle Bennett]

highnumber,

Is this that "usual treatment" thing VM alluded to? If so, I'm not seeing the point.

Oh wait, I know, "Yooou willll, you will, soon enough. *rubs hands together and laughs maliciously*".

I'm quakin', I tell ya.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Yep, yet another case of those insular and self-righteous Objectivists I was talking about."

Objectivist? That's what you think.

"you agree politically almost 100% with people"

You people? That's what you think.

"but you find them more despicable than communists."

Not you so much, but many of the others.

[Timothy]

VM: I like "gravy".

[Richard Nikoley]

"Ahh, I see, so you can never, ever speak ill of a person if they're a member of your tribe, eh?"

Not even close to the implication of what I said. Check the context. My grandfathers did nothing to Jake Boone. If anything, he's welcome to call me out for posting about them, but making fun of them, of their memories.

Well, I don't know if you'd do that, but I sure wouldn't do it to his gradfathers, or yours, no matter what you or he did to me -- not without specific and direct reason.

That's what I'm getting at. A man simply doesn't do that sort of thing. Hell, even mafia goons, at least in the folklore, know that you don't insult the family.

"Incredible?so, your family can do no wrong?"

Listen: they have done no wrong to you, or Boone. That's the point.

[highnumber]

I'm not sure who you think I am, Mr Bennett. Why might one quake at the thought of another person, let alone a person simply typing comments on a website?
As far as whether or not you perceive "the point," Unless you are a master of irony, there is no need to state this.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

WELL SIDING WITH THE NAZIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT GETS ONE'S LIVER PECKED OUT FOR ETERNITY. STEALING FIRE, SIDING WITH NAZIS, LIKING MAYO, AND ENJOYING JOHN TESH ARE THE TOP FOR ON THE LIST FOR LIVER PECKERY.

[Kyle Bennett]

I'm not sure who you think I am, Mr Bennett.

I honestly haven't given it a second's thought.

[Who Its Meant For (probably no]

It was a slow day at the zoo. A couple of patrons watched quietly as a couple of monkeys examined a broken object and worked out that they could fit it through the bars and probably get it to go in the light socket. One patron said "Look, this is why I come here. They're smart, they're going to use that as a tool." One patron, named Billy, stepped between them, put a hard boot to the cage and shouted "KNOCK IT OFF, MONKEYS".

The other patrons were taken aback, as were the monkeys. They rose up shrieking, some at Billy, but most at each other, as monkeys do when confused. One of the monkeys ran to the back of the cage, hoping the zookeeper would be there to chase Billy off. Some of the patrons tried to make soothing noises. These weren't the noises the monkeys were used to, they didn't sound like monkey noises, so they got even more upset. These patrons persisted, sometimes with monkey-speak, and occasionally in plain english, so the other patrons might know what they were trying to say.

By now a lot more patrons had come to see what the commotion was about, as there was quite a bit of shrieking and feces throwing. Those patrons knowledgeable about monkeys tried to explain what was happening over the noise. The zookeepers, knowledgable about patrons, quietly remarked to themselves, "It's a good day at the monkey cages."

[Richard Nikoley]

"I've been saying that you all should have been banned from the beginning. It took Reason a long, long time to clean house of the acrimony, insults and childish pettiness that used to exist in these pages, and you are your crew managed to bring it all back."

They ought to start with banning all the "chubby little girl" and other SubGenius-esque crap and if you don't know what I mean I can spell it out.

I really don't need the lecture on private property, K?

[highnumber]

I honestly haven't given it a second's thought.

We'll add that to the list.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

HOPEFULLY HIS GRAMPS IS TAKING HIS DIRT NAP TO SPARE HIM FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT OF HOW SILLY HIS FAMILY TURNED OUT.

OH YEAH. ETERNITY MOBILE STRAIGHT TO THE BONE ORCHARD.

WITH LIVER ON THE SIDE, COURTESY OF FLAPPY.

(*YET ANOTHER TIME WHEN HR.BENNETT DIDN'T THINK. HVOR PINLIGT.)

[Ayn_Randian]

Yet you are supporting the principle of self-sacrifice.

I'm supporting a tactic that might just lead to the DEA to back off MMJ dispensaries around the country.

If you're divining support of a principle in there, you should explain why you think that is.

I said it. That's a pretty strong indicator that I do indeed think it.

My simple, simple second-hander brain senses a
Seussian lesson in here somewhere.

DAMN YOU GEISEL I'LL GET YOU YET!

My grandfathers did nothing to Jake Boone.

Likewise, he's done nothing to them.

I'd like to mention this whole bizarre conversation is occurring because Boone made a joke about you being a grandpa and you, yet again, took it seriously over the top as an insult to your family.

This would normally be the time where I point out that, in order to communicate effectively with a group of people who have a bunch of nuances, in-jokes, rules and preferences, (like a family, a group of friends or some other group that has been together for a while) you might start by easing yourself into that group, not jump in guns-a-blazing, telling folks they don't belong here and saying all forms of nasty and brutal things.

I would point that out, but it looks like you've decided to take the hard way to learn that lesson.

[Kyle Bennett]

Yet you are supporting the principle of self-sacrifice.

I'm supporting a tactic that might just lead to the DEA to back off MMJ dispensaries around the country.

But you've given no thought to what that tactic will cost. And don't bring up money.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I did clear my schedule for the evening and explain how Billy could email me his number..."

You might have taken the opportunity while you were saying "I'm going to" a dozen times to get that business taken care of. You were both online.

[VM]

They ought to start with banning all the "chubby little girl" and other SubGenius-esque crap and if you don't know what I mean I can spell it out.

I really don't need the lecture on private property, K?

No, thank you. Because every other time you've "spelled things out", it's turned into a spittle fest of your childish swearing, threats, changing definitions and goalposts, misdirecting, and general intellectual Michael-Bolton-clownery.

And lecturing you on "private property" no doubt would end in the same on your part. However, as you probably can get someone to explain to you, this isn't your property, so I'm sure the powers that be will be most not interested in the highest degree to whom you would see banned.

"k"

[Kyle Bennett]

this isn't your property,

Nor is it yours.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

IT ISN'T MINE EITHER, BUT AT LEAST I HAVE THE COMMON COURTESY NOT TO SHIT ON ANY OF THE CARPETS. AND I AM A BIRD FOR ZEUS'S SAKE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HARD IT WAS TO TOILET TRAIN MYSELF?

[VM]

interesting. very interesting.

In related news, the net radio just started playing a song by the group "The The": "The Violence of Truth".

Must be the Anarkosocialists' (those hier) theme song.

Do they have the same physical horsepower as intellectual?

If so, they'd have trouble performing basic tasks. Like chewing.

Gravy.

You're right, Timothy - that is a good word.

Navy Bean Soup is another good concept. It's a non-violent soup. And it can take some spice. Ah! The opposite of those, um, guest posters.

[Richard Nikoley]

"For clarification, I read the phrase "how very fucking smart grandpa is" to mean yourself."

It was intended generally.

"Seriously, why would I give Shit One about your grandfathers (aside from bemoaning their lack of foresight/contraceptives)?"

See, you just can't help yourself, can you? Cracking jokes about people who can't possibly defend themselves, who've done nothing to you, who you know nothing about. I just don't see how you can do it. I can't. I simply can't. Never would. It's beneath me to do something like that.

Not you though.

"But seeing you brag that one was on the Nazis' side during WWII was definitely worth the misunderstanding."

You don't know what you're talking about. He was a draftee, and an office clerk. He used to tell me about all the songs they would sing making fun of Hitler, when they could get away with it.

You likely have no idea what horrors many regular folks in Germany went through in those days. Certainly not to the level of the Jews, but pretty damn bad.

But you go right ahead. Laugh it up.

[Billy Beck]

Rich: "Matt Welch: you need to clean house here. I'll be happy to go,..."

Me, too, if that's what it takes.

I e-mailed you the other day. It's the very first time you've ever ignored me.

Somebody needs to do something about this.

"Reason"

Look at it. You've got goddamned "urkobold" and "ham tears" running in packs with the rest of these dogs.

[FLAPPY THE EAGLE]

DOGS ARE A KIN ANIMAL IN SPIRIT TO WE NOBLE EAGLES, AS THEY ALSO HUNT FOR A LIVING. DEER, THOUGH, DEER ARE PESKY AND RETARDED.

[Ayn_Randian]

But you've given no thought to what that tactic will cost. And don't bring up money.

What's the cost, Kyle?

[Billy Beck]

"The zookeepers, knowledgable about patrons, quietly remarked to themselves, 'It's a good day at the monkey cages.'"

I expect that that's about the size of it.

[VM]

"It's beneath me to do something like that."

right. you threaten people or support violence. gosh, you're really cute, actually.

It's funny that you think you're the only one on this board who has/had family in Germany.

However, since you're into seizing all narrative for yourself, I guess it's no surprise.

Next, you're gonna say where Germany is, have it all wrong (d00d, that's New Zealand!!), and threaten more violence.

Did you wake up to find a three foot long TLB parasite in your colon?

[highnumber]

Mr Beck:
You were another principal in this thread. What was this really all about?

[Billy Beck]

Principles. That's what.

And the past tense is wrong.

[Ayn_Randian]

I expect that that's about the size of it.

You officially sanctioned that.

Fuck off, Billy. Seriously, fuck off.

[YOGURT]

MERCHANDISING!!!!!!!

[Kyle Bennett]

What's the cost, Kyle?

Your life. Not all at once, but in dribs and drabs until one day you're old and tired and realize you let it all slip away.

The cost is that you are feeding the beast a finger at a time, then a hand, then an arm, in hopes that he won't consume you all at once. And when he gets to your legs, you won't even have the option of running or hiding.

At least try just walking away while you still can, maybe. Leave some fingernail clippings and dandruff to keep him too busy to notice, then just slip away. He can't feed himself.

[highnumber]

Oh, no. The past tense was correct. We're wrapping up. I am conducting a post thread analysis. It appears that few, if any, individuals who contributed heavily to this thread have any depth of true understanding.
It's somewhat fascinating, from this perspective.

[Ayn_Randian]

Actually, I don't even know why I bothered to tell you to "Fuck off". It's not as if you can understand monkey-talk from the likes of me.

OO-OOO-OO-AH-AH-AH.

[Billy Beck]

"Fuck off, Billy. Seriously, fuck off."

{heartbreak}

Awww... nom-poseur... Does this mean we ain't pals no more?

[Ayn_Randian]

Hey, Hit and Runners, we have officially been called a lower form of species.

Don't you get it? We deserve no rights; we're animals.

Is that "about the size of it", fuckers?

Insular, misanthropic, self-righteous, delusions about an "enemy world"...christ.

[Billy Beck]

"Hey, Hit and Runners, we have officially been called a lower form of species."

When that's how you behave, that's what happens.

I told you septic creeps up near the top of this thing: you can have things your way.

[lunchstealer]

Principles. That's what.

Chief among them, don't be a dick. You've consistently been a dick here. Your behavior is uncalled for. I'm sorry your life sucks and you can't find work because you're too uncompromising. But the answer is not to just be a dick.

That's what this thread is about. It's not about NORML's tax stance. It's not about taxes. It's about the fact that you've been a complete and total dick since this thread was 14 minutes old.

That's the reason we're still here. Nobody's here because they legitimately think your principles are wrong. We're here because your principles lead you to be a dick when you could just as easily just NOT BE A DICK. That's what this thread has been about since 12:57 on Friday.

[lunchstealer]

When that's how you behave, that's what happens.

You're upset with our behavior, but refuse to take any responsibility for setting the tone in this thread. You set it. You pissed us off, not the other way around. You walked in here with a chip on your shoulder - a chip that you've been carrying since you were 13 years old.

The difference between you and us is that the rest of us grow out of the "I hate the world" phase.

[dhex]

They ought to start with banning all the "chubby little girl" and other SubGenius-esque crap and if you don't know what I mean I can spell it out.

here's some background on this phenomena:

urkobold - that is, the ur troll, the first troll, the untrolled troller, the self-trolling troll, he who trolls us like flutes, etc - and the related phenomenon is a social counter-mechanism for regulating what had been an inflow of "trolling." now whether intentionally disruptive or merely anti-social, some people end up derailing things. now, sometimes this works well - the derailment turns into an interesting sidebar on issue xyz - but most often it turns into a chorus of shit. it's too hard, especially in a public forum, to have all posters ignore or otherwise prevent things from degenerating. (as usenet veterans you are, no doubt, are familiar with this.)

now, i can understand frowning on sado-surrealism, but i've yet to see a better response to folks like TLB, et al. you'll notice a distinct lack of antagonism in other h+r threads, even where people are disagreeing with each other with fierce conviction. there's a reason for that. (i.e. lunchstealer's post above)

[Ayn_Randian]

Does this mean we ain't pals no more?

I'm not all torn up about it. Ubermenschen such as yourself aren't allowed to be friends with mud-people like me anyway.

Even if we were friends, we couldn't communicate...I'm a subhuman animal, remember?

[The Voice in Billy Beck\'s Hea]

There's the gas can; it's full. There's a box of matches--and look, highway flares. Let us put on our bomber jacket and get in our van. We know the roads to DC, planned it all out already we have. Christmas Eve, that's the day, we'll make a spectacular show on the steps of the Capital. They'll never forget us, Billy, you and me, we'll wake them up. We'll show those homo sapiens how to be human. Free will, free will, free will.

[Billy Beck]

"You pissed us off, not the other way around."

"WAAHH!! He smashed my smiley-face so I had to go play with the dogs!"

I don't know when I ever saw such a filthy nursery.

[Billy Beck]

"Even if we were friends, we couldn't communicate...I'm a subhuman animal, remember?"

I have to say: you sometimes front a very good pose.

[Jake Boone]

You might have taken the opportunity while you were saying "I'm going to" a dozen times to get that business taken care of. You were both online.

That's I great point! Of course, with your mind-reading powers, you probably already know that I wasn't at my home -- and thus, near my own phone -- at the time. So what's your point again? I told him how to send me his phone number, he refused. End of story.

[Ayn_Randian]

I can't understand you Billy...my tiny little monkey mind wants to grasp what you're saying to me, but....sadness.

[Billy Beck]

"...my tiny little monkey mind wants to grasp what you're saying to me..."

I know. I've seen it.

You're the one in charge of your evolution, kid. Nobody else can do it for you.

[GinSlinger]

Just remember Billy Budd, if you listen to the voice inside your head, take a stack of FRNs to pay for the clean up. You have no right to my labour to pay for your grandstanding.

[VM]

Dhex, Jake, AR, Gin:

in your experiences, are Billy et al something exciting and new (sort of like the faux missing link episode on the Love Boat where the actor who played Col.Potter was the honest scientist who was prepared to throw it away for love; and "the eyes are the mirror of the soul" kept getting brought up - this was recited from memory from the original airing)?

or are they feeble reflections of other faux internet tuff gaiz who yell in their echo chambers and don't have the luxury of Stevo's bunk?

[Urkobold?]

THIS. . .
IS. . .
REEEASON!!!

[KICKS TROLL INTO CONVENIENTLY LOCATED PIT]

[lunchstealer]

Billy, just so you know, that's what this thread has been about. Not your objection to NORML's stance. Your behavior.

I have to say at this point, I really wouldn't give a shit if the DEA ran you over with a tank. I'd probably use it as yet another argument to get the DEA abolished, but I just wouldn't really care.

[dhex]

Oh, you're so idealistic. Wait until you come across someone who doesn't give a shit about your ideals.

i like how you assume people haven't!

not everyone becomes a bitter old shit. just mostly everyone. 🙂

The person who violates the non-aggression principle, in word or in deed, does not get to choose the response of the victim (that's the properly victim's choice).

think very carefully about this stance, i implore you, because you seem to be giving license to the owners of hit and run to, like, car battery your guys testicles or something. (or whatever the proper response to this bullshit is by your value system.)

i don't know if you're a stanley fish fan or not - i will assume not and perhaps be surprised. mr. fish is a smart cookie, but i've never bought into his notion of words being as hateful or damaging as deeds. think about it - i can call ten random people a terrible name, and they will react in various ways; being stabbed results in, well, a stab wound. there's a vast gulf between word and deed, that while may not be as vast as i've previously thought.

[Jake Boone]

Hey! I just got an email from Billy! The entire contents:

SUBJECT: [SUSPECTED SPAM]
BODY: Phonies don't phone

Billy, neither does anyone else, if you don't put your phone number in the message body, you silly boy.

Also, Gmail apparently thinks you're a spammer. Better go break Sergei Brin's nose!

[Billy Beck]

"I have to say at this point, I really wouldn't give a shit if the DEA ran you over with a tank."

There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

This government should just put the Smiley-Face on the Great Seal, all the money, and the tanks, too.

It's the ethical coin of the realm, now.

[Ayn_Randian]

You're the one in charge of your evolution, kid.

my tiny monkey-mind is telling me that you actually think you're more evolved than everyone here.

the monkey chatters and laughs at you.

in your experiences, are Billy et al something exciting and new

VM - a little of column A and column B. Billy has already indicated that he actually believes he's evolved over the rest of us. That's a bit of crazy that's new to me (kind of), at least in Objectivists.

But his over-the-top attitude leads me to believe he's nothing more than an ITG.

[Billy Beck]

Boone: you're going to come to me. It's not going to go the other way around.

[Billy Beck]

"my tiny monkey-mind is telling me that you actually think you're more evolved than everyone here."

Don't break your neck being stupid, candy-pants. It's a metaphor, and there is a lot of room in it for you.

[dhex]

ooops lost that last bit

"...still seems quite a distance to me."

in your experiences, are Billy et al something exciting and new (sort of like the faux missing link episode on the Love Boat where the actor who played Col.Potter was the honest scientist who was prepared to throw it away for love; and "the eyes are the mirror of the soul" kept getting brought up - this was recited from memory from the original airing)?

or are they feeble reflections of other faux internet tuff gaiz who yell in their echo chambers and don't have the luxury of Stevo's bunk?

well, i've made fun of ayn rand for years because i love literature and hate those who murder it for the sake of making speeches. on the other hand, i've defended her from people who go too far - being a poor writer or even having a wacky theology doesn't make one a terrible person - simply because they don't like "capitalism" or "selfishness" or what have you.

now i kind of feel like a chump because this is very much the kind of stereotype they were bandying about, and i told them - quite falsely - that they were mistaken.

so in this sense it is new, a whole new world...perhaps even a new, fantastic point of view.

in another sense i haven't seen the I MUST BREAK YOU routine since my usenet days oh so long ago. that's fairly novel, if sad. the only real sticking point is this strange conception of "reputation" as a kind of zero-sum game rather than a socially-constructed device to measure status among a certain group. reputation is, like much of human nature, quite collectivistic in nature, as are honor culture tactics in general.

so perhaps inside each individualist is the struggle against the collectivist inside, the social animal struggling to get out. no doubt we've all met "you first" socialists whose idea of a free society begins with "the other" parting with their (no doubt ill-gotten) gains; this seems to be an interesting mirror of that - "i am an individual, and you shall honor me or else."

edit: billy did you run out of frequent flyer miles or something?

or did you just rediscover a particular flaw with honor culture "brinkmanship" engagements?

[Blind man #1]

Ah, an elephant is like a wall!

[VM]

Oh mighty, feared, beloved URKOBOLD, please not whither. No. Whither. Taint.

Jake -

are you surprised? a coward by any other name is a "BILLY", perhaps.

Hay Billy: BAWK BAWK. internet chicken of bristol.

[GinSlinger]

Boone: you're going to come to me. It's not going to go the other way around.

Um, Billy Budd, you're clearly not up to snuff on your code duello. You challenged, Jake accepted. You proposed a site, Jake rejected it and proposed an alternate. You do not get to determine the site following that. If you wish to satisfy your blood lust, you must travel. Remember, it is you that are seeking satisfaction; not the other way around.

[Billy Beck]

Shut up, chimp. I already know where he is, and you have no idea what this is about.

[Jake Boone]

You are the one who wants to talk on the phone. Remember all that "moral courage" shit you were spewing?

So I said I'd do it, and told you how to get me your phone number via email. But you wouldn't follow through. You sent me an email, alright, but what did it contain? Was it sent solely to spam me? And people said I could trust you with my home phone number...

I'm no medical professional, but I think I've figured out your particular "brand of crazy". You're narcissistic and misanthropic, but above all, you're a sociopath who clings to the idea of anarchism -- a concept that, from your writings here and elsewhere, you cannot possibly fully understand -- to try and justify your own hatred of humanity.

From your "I am within my rights to summarily murder anyone who trespasses against me in any way whatsoever" to your "I am just like Timothy McVeigh, except I won't kill the innocent" (but see the above), to your "I have a cunning plan to immolate myself on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building," I see no reason to believe that you are in full possession of your faculties. I advise you to seek mental treatment at once, and if payment is a problem, perhaps your cheerleading squad can volunteer to help foot the bill.

If that's not too second-handish for them.

[Ayn_Randian]

It's a metaphor, and there is a lot of room in it for you.

This may just be My Tiny Monkey Mind speaking, oh great and wonderful Walker-Uprighter, but don't the entities in metaphors usually correlate?

you = human
we equalses monkeys.

the metaphor is instructive in that that's how you really think

of course that's just my tiny monkey minds' little insignificant opinion. I await your enlightenment and the Way to the Truth and the Light...how do I become you, oh bastion of rationality and truth?

[GinSlinger]

I have every "idea what this is about." For you have made the same threat/back-peddle to me. I accepted but with an alternate location. Where are you? I'm waiting. You best consult the Irish Dueling Codes, I have one week before I can publish a scathing account of your cowardice. Also, the choice of weapons is up to me, so don't expect it to be pugilism, since that seems to be what you want so badly.

[VM]

This Moose might suggest another way to satiate the need for satisfaction, and it's not location-bound! BATIN.

You don't need Stevo's bunk, and you don't need metaphorical sack (something BAWKING Billy clearly lacks), just a real sack.

Unless you have the same problem King Missile has.

[Blind man #2]

No, an elephant is like a snake!

[VM]

And JsubD's observation is still probably correct:

Angry white male. Failure in school, on the job, in life generally. Unable to form adult relationships with women. Play the Billy Badass game on the tubes, fantasizing about how tough and revolutionary he really is. Goes to work at Dairy Queen on Monday.

from hier: J sub D | December 15, 2007, 5:17pm

[Billy Beck]

"You sent me an email, alright, but what did it contain? Was it sent solely to spam me?"

No. It's a judgment.

[Ayn_Randian]

This Moose might suggest another way to satiate the need for satisfaction, and it's not location-bound! BATIN.

Uhhh, Moose? It does have slight location restrictions, right?

[GinSlinger]

Goes to work at Dairy Queen on Monday.

Nah, he sets up the lighting for "bands."

Real skill there, taught in high schools the country over to theater students.

Billy Budd, what's your favorite brand of gels?

A real integral part of the music "scene" up there in his podunk farm town.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I'd like to mention this whole bizarre conversation is occurring because Boone made a joke about you being a grandpa and you, yet again, took it seriously over the top as an insult to your family."

Not what happened. And I'm not a grandfather.

"Likewise, he's done nothing to them.

That's what you think.

[Billy Beck]

"I advise you to seek mental treatment at once..."

Thanx for your sweetest-ever concern, but I'm the one responsible for my life -- not you -- and I know exactly what I'm doing, every step of the way.

[GinSlinger]

Thanx for your sweetest-ever concern, but I'm the one responsible for my life -- not you -- and I know exactly what I'm doing, every [Capitol] step of the way.

[dhex]

No. It's a judgment.

the weird thing is you seem to think that this has weight.

you simply do not seem to understand the communal boundaries of social sanctioning. it's the same issue as "stealing reputations".

[VM]

Yes. That's what he thinks.

And it's even funnier that you went all ballistic and permatard after that. And if that's how you react to imagined insults against your family, take this one one:

I bet at least one of them can't sing for a damn! And I bet another doesn't like driving that much.

BAZING!!!!!! MEGA INSULT!!!!!!

AR:

okay - a few restrictions. But good technique for getting a seat on the bus... hrumph.

[Billy Beck]

I would just like to say that I appreciate whoever subscribed me to the PETA newsletter.

It's been a long time since anyone popped that sort of a junior high-school gag on me.

[Ayn_Randian]

That's what you think.

Are they alive?

[Kommandant of Nikoley\'s Gross]

Ach ja. I remember Grossvater of Dickie Nikoley. He vos the laziest, poorest exkuze for one ov os zat ever vos. but i think he vos a good believer. just impossible to manage - he vould bore himself awake from hiz katnapz!

In fakt, I vould believe zat zis grossvater vos much more of, say, a Danish Stable Boy vith zee verk ethik of zee kommon outhouse-cleaning-school dropout.

ach. but he did love hiz uniform.

[Billy Beck]

"Nah, he sets up the lighting for 'bands.'

Real skill there, taught in high schools the country over to theater students."

Cool! Someone wants to talk about me! One of my favorite subjects.

My current Boss is a Grammy and Academy Award winner. I'm going to Japan again next month.

I have a question for you: were you ever charged with the responsibility of hanging almost 40,000 pounds of sound and lights over the head of a multi-platinum act, coast-to-coast, every day? I mean, high-schoolers never get to do that.

How many Pyle-National connectors have you ever wired? Ever built a dimmer-rack? Ever drive an Avo desk? Ever set up a DMX universe or write a schedule?

Ever tour America with a Bolshoi Ballet repertory company?

"what's your favorite brand of gels?"

Lee Filters.

Let me know if you need advice. I'm all about helping.

[Ayn_Randian]

I would just like to say that I appreciate whoever subscribed me to the PETA newsletter.

we monkeys are funny like that...of course, my tiny monkey brain tells me its awfully presumptuous of you to assume it was one of us here. After all, we're stupid monkeys...we can't type Shakespeare without serious labor and material overhead.

[highnumber]

Cool! Someone wants to talk about me! One of my favorite subjects.

And yet you still have this illusion that the thread was about principles.

Self delusion is fascinating.

[dhex]

and yet you have no self control.

veddy interesting.

[Die Putzfrau von Nebenan]

ach ja - i too remember zis grossvater.

i once kaught him naked vith a bowl of sauerkraut.

und he just sawed off part of zee chair to make sweet love to zee leg stump.

ach. he vos the vorst of zee bunch. I am just glad zat zee Billy's grossvater was the used kondom kleaner in zee Kapetown Brothel.

genetic material not fall far from zee Tannenbaum, ja?

[GinSlinger]

Cool! Someone wants to talk about me! One of my favorite subjects.

Sure, why not? If it can be done civilly I would love to hear about your work.

My current Boss is a Grammy and Academy Award winner. I'm going to Japan again next month.

That sounds amazing! Must be pretty cool to travel all over like that, seeing new people and places, when I travel on work, I don't get out much. Do you have enough time to enjoy the new scenery or is pretty much arrive, set-up, perform, break-down, leave?

I have a question for you: were you ever charged with the responsibility of hanging almost 40,000 pounds of sound and lights over the head of a multi-platinum act, coast-to-coast, every day? I mean, high-schoolers never get to do that.

No, Billy Beck, I have never done those things. You're getting a little snarky here, but I'll let it pass. I too have done things that most people have not.

How many Pyle-National connectors have you ever wired? Ever built a dimmer-rack? Ever drive an Avo desk? Ever set up a DMX universe or write a schedule?

Other than helping with a dimmer-rack, I haven't done anything like that either. Sounds like a lot of work and knowledge. Sounds pretty cool, working with technology like that and getting to travel.

Ever tour America with a Bolshoi Ballet repertory company?

If I had, I assume we'd have crossed paths. Still, once again, sounds like you've got a real dream job there.

Let me know if you need advice. I'm all about helping.

Well, thanks for the offer. I don't personally do anything like that, but I know people who do. If they run into trouble I now know where to turn.

Do you contract yourself out? Or do you have the equivalent of an agent? I bet dhex knows a bit about these kinds of things, perhaps you and he should talk.

[Jake Boone]

So is that different from being a roadie?

[Richard Nikoley]

VM, a while back, wrote:

"So what we have hier is:

AR and other Objectivists mixing it up with some Internets Tuff Gaiz.

The ITGs cannot argue for crap, don't know their stuff very well, mix things around, get called on it, and then get indignant. And start the "pussy" comments and threaten violence."

See the thing is, to "argue for crap" is first and foremost about choosing what argument you're going to get involved with carefully. You can claim the thread is about somebody's behavior all day long, but at the end of it the title is what it is, the post is what it is, and the initial comments are what they are, and everything followed from that.

Billy was simply right, and whether you think it's just dandy to shift things from one form of state coercion to another -- cause it's so "efficient" and "useful" -- or not, he simply stated the plain fact that that's what was going on.

Then he gets rations of shit about stating a plain fact, tells you to stop, to just stop, but you didn't. You wanted to play it by your rules, with the full implications of how things go when fights over who gets to steal what from who -- and it turns on who does it "best" -- don't get resolved rationally.

He, and to some extent some of the rest of us have simply given you all exactly what your premises call for.

[Billy Beck]

"I too have done things that most people have not."

How often do rank assholes drop that "high-school" line on you?

[GinSlinger]

How often do rank assholes drop that "high-school" line on you?

Pretty often as a matter of fact. The fact that that's not true doesn't shake me a bit. I typically just say, "Well, you have a point, some of the skills that I use are taught in high school, but not anywhere near the level needed in my field. Still, high school does provide a valuable basis on which to build."

[Ayn_Randian]

Richard, are you ever "off"?

Have you ever followed a whim in your life?

Do you know how to relax or what? I feel like I'm in Baptist Church in Texas.

[VM]

Bzzt. Sorry, Dickie, you misinterpreted what I wrote. Flat out didn't understand it

Wrong, yet again. Not surprising, really.

[highnumber]

Okay. Thread summary report is finished.

Jacob Sullum blogged a slightly interesting, but mostly ho-hum story about California NORML. A couple of comments in, the unknown "Billy Beck" goes from 0 to raging, rude, asshole with no social skills in no time. People call him on his manners. His friends (all of them?) show up. Wankery, random assholery, plus a good deal of twaddleknockery ensues. Mr Beck basks in the attention, his ego swaddled tightly in the bright, bright light of one page of a libertarian magazine's weblog.

Shall we move on to greener pastures?

[Billy Beck]

Run away, sonny. I know you will.

[Richard Nikoley]

First time I met Billy face to face was a few years back when he was out in SF to do a show.

He gave me a little tour of the operation. Most remarkable to me is how they move in all that massive gear, set it all up (this was a single show, as I recall -- a private show) then break it all down again. As this was a private show in one of the SF Mariott's grand ballrooms, it was much smaller scale that lots of the stuff he's done. Still, it was a lot.

Ah, here's some testimony.

[VM]

How great is that:

a groupie for a roadie!!!

[Billy Beck]

"Most remarkable to me is how they move in all that massive gear, set it all up (this was a single show, as I recall -- a private show) then break it all down again."

To begin with, it's just appalling to me -- though not surprising in the least -- how epistemic cripples will run that "high school" gag on what I do for a living, because of diversion from essentials that it represents. Naturally, when I meet him on his premises, he starts to moan about "snark".

People who have to ask what all this has been about are just as stupid as the day is long. It's the most obvious thing in the world.

Rich: I wish you could meet some of the men I've been privileged to run with. I wish you could have seen some of the things they've done. (I remember my brother risking his life for nearly twelve hours on the Pink Floyd wind-wall at Arrowhead Stadium in 1988. That was utterly heroic, and I'll never forget it.)

If you think I'm impressive, you'd be knocked flat on your ass if you ever saw some of my mates in action.

[dhex]

You wanted to play it by your rules, with the full implications of how things go when fights over who gets to steal what from who -- and it turns on who does it "best" -- don't get resolved rationally.

oddly enough, that's why anarchism doesn't work on any real scale.

weird, huh?

[dhex]

to elaborate: this thread would have passed on by had no one actually responded to billy's first comment.

sadly, british we are and british we stay.

[Richard Nikoley]

"Richard, are you ever "off"?"

What, you mean here? Sure. I think I hung it up around 11PM (pacific) last night, popped in at 7 or so this morning before my habitual 3+ mile morning walk with the dogs (five years and over 5k miles, so far), came back, took dark coffee, a smoke, made myself apple smoked bacon, a toasted onion omelet, and sliced vine-ripened tomatoes for breakfast, showed up and here I am.

The maids are soon to arrive, so I'll pack it up and head over to the office.

I do have the luxury of lots of free time. I started a company in the financial arena back in 1992, and was finally comfortable in leaving it in someone else's able hands exactly a year ago. I'm working on other stuff, such as building a 5-unit townhouse "complex" in Sunnyvale, CA.

I've been heavily involved in the markets over the last year, but I've decided that for the time and aggravation I'm going to shift back to "buy & mold."

Got an internet startup in the lending space in the works, and just closed on second round of seed funding yesterday (in the midst of all this crapola).

Then I have another internet startup on the drawing board. Something completely different, and actually something inspired by my wife. She created a workable business quite by accident (the best kind), so now I'm figuring how to do it online.

"Have you ever followed a whim in your life?"

I suppose you could read the foregoing and call it either way. I love my life, and when I don't I change what needs changing.

As for this, well, I haven't gotten this involved in a thread in nearly 10 years. It's a bit nostalgic.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

HARRO BILLY. HARRO KYLE. HARRO RICHARD.

SMILE!!!!!!!!!

[Billy Beck]

"oddly enough, that's why anarchism doesn't work on any real scale."

Got cites? Real history will do.

[GinSlinger]

He gave me a little tour of the operation. Most remarkable to me is how they move in all that massive gear, set it all up (this was a single show, as I recall -- a private show) then break it all down again. As this was a private show in one of the SF Mariott's grand ballrooms, it was much smaller scale that lots of the stuff he's done. Still, it was a lot.

Yeah, I read your account. Sounds like a lot of the shows that I have been a small part in setting up here in the "Live Music Capitol of the World." Still those were all local shows, so after take-down, the time was ours. Your account sounds like the stereotypical arrive, set-up, perform, take-down, on the bus again road thing. Too bad, but it sounds like Billy gets plenty of free time between gigs to relax. I guess I'll never know because Billy won't engage in a civil conversation even about himself.

[Richard Nikoley]

"oddly enough, that's why anarchism doesn't work on any real scale."

State your premise, i.e., "work."

[lunchstealer]

Billy Beck responded to me this way:

Billy Beck | December 20, 2007, 12:34pm | #
"I have to say at this point, I really wouldn't give a shit if the DEA ran you over with a tank."

There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

This government should just put the Smiley-Face on the Great Seal, all the money, and the tanks, too.

It's the ethical coin of the realm, now.

Billy Beck has previously said:

Almost nobody who ever deals with me in daily affairs would suspect that I would just as soon see them run over by a DEA combat vehicle.

It is certainly your ethical coin.

And there we have it. What Billy says to other people pisses them off, and rightly so. Because when people treat him the way he treats them, he gets pissed off.

Why don't he sack up and tell people around him how he really feels? He tells us why in his own words:

dhex [Billy Beck] does not have the nerve to do that himself. Instead, expresses his opinion about my life's priorities anonymously and from a safe distance, over the internet and in a voting booth.

Billy, don't tell us, who you know will never come halfway across the country to find you (mostly because we're not crazy psychopaths) how you feel. Tell your neighbors. Tell them just how much contempt you hold them in. Tell your father in law and your uncle how much contempt you have for them. Lay it all out there.

[Billy Beck]

"I guess I'll never know because Billy won't engage in a civil conversation even about himself."

Reprise.

Who do you think you're kidding? There is no value in it with you. I see no profit, and I'm not interested.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy Beck has previously said:..."

Aside from the obvious categorical difference between what I said and what you said, why didn't you cite that?

[Jake Boone]

"You sent me an email, alright, but what did it contain? Was it sent solely to spam me?"

No. It's a judgment.

Gotcha. So I showed willingness to call, I explained how you could get me your phone number... and you know I gave a good email, because you sent email to it which I quoted back to you. However, you refused to share the phone number, and now you're giving me shit for... not calling?

Oooookay, nutbag.

[GinSlinger]

OoooOOO, I can do that too. Reprise!

As to: I'm not interested.

I can only reply with your own words: Cool! Someone wants to talk about me! One of my favorite subjects.

[Billy Beck]

"...and now you're giving me shit for... not calling?"

No, in fact, that's not it.

I meant what I said.

You can make this happen, but you're going to have to pay close attention in order to do it.

[GinSlinger]

Okay, Billy Budd, have it your way.

So, you seem like a pretty big hot shot in the biz. I mean an Academy and Grammy award winner sought you ought to work with? Damn you're just like the John Galt of the the stage lighting industry.

So, why haven't you shrugged Billy? Why haven't you shrugged?

Galt didn't sit around all day writing letters to the people beneath him. But, you do the 21st century version.

Galt didn't bitch and moan about the DEA or the IRS. He didn't care; he was outside their grasp. You on the other hand . . . .

Galt didn't worry about what other people said about him. He was confident enough with who he was. And you? Well, you'll threaten violence if a meat puppet voices contempt of your human reputation.

So, Billy Budd, why don't you go ahead and shrug off!

[Jake Boone]

You can make this happen, but you're going to have to pay close attention in order to do it.

All right, now you're just being silly. I'm not going to jump through any more of your vague fucking hoops. I called your bluff, and now you're trying to hide the fact that you didn't have the balls you claimed to have, you lying, spamming asshat. Welcome to the junk mail folder.

[Billy Beck]

"Okay, Billy Budd, have it your way."

You're the one who set it up. That's what that "Reprise" link was all about, and it's right there in front of everybody, so save your bullshit for someone not in touch with the facts.

"So, why haven't you shrugged Billy?"

I have.

[Billy Beck]

"All right, now you're just being silly. I'm not going to jump through any more of your vague fucking hoops."

Another phoney in the bag.

[GinSlinger]

I have.

Either you're lying when you claimed to still be working, or you're lying now. You want me to post the link to the chat you had where you claimed that you would not take on forged documents to work? You pay sales tax. You stop for vehicle inspections. You fly with identification and taxes. You pay your property taxes. You, sir, most certainly have not shrugged.

Unless you have a different crypto-meaning for shrugging. Then feel free to claim you have and be called out on it.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

dhex wrote:
the only real sticking point is this strange conception of "reputation" as a kind of zero-sum game rather than a socially-constructed device to measure status among a certain group. reputation is, like much of human nature, quite collectivistic in nature, as are honor culture tactics in general.

In the financial world, the essence of reputation is price. The reputation of the issuer of a security will affect the price at which that security trades.

Let's say Alice issues a security which trades in a fully free market. Now Bob goes about questioning Alice's financial integrity in a very public way. He may be lying, he may be mistaken, or he may be telling the truth.

Regardless of the truth of the matter, if many traders hear Bob and believe him, Alice's security will tend to trade at sharply lower prices.

At this point, Alice has an opportunity. If she has enough spare capital on hand, she can buy back her securities at a steep discount. Perhaps her securities are a promise to deliver some asset such as gold, currency, or shares on demand. If she buys back her securities at a 20% discount, she gets a 20% discount on all the assets in her vault which those securities represent.

Also, anybody who knows Alice and trusts her reputation, in spite of what Bob is saying, can also capitalize on this opportunity. If enough traders act this way, it will firm up the price and help dispel the notion that Alice is untrustworthy.

But if Bob is telling the truth, and Alice really is untrustworthy, it is unlikely that Alice or anybody who knows her will be financially motivated to buy the securities she issued, even at the steep discount. If enough traders act this way, it will weaken the price and help confirm the notion that Alice is untrustworthy.

This is the process of price discovery. We can argue at length about whether Alice's reputation is her property, and if Bob's lie or mistake is a form of theft, but in a fully free market, Alice has an insurance policy against this kind of event: the opportunity to profit from the falling price.

It is conceivable that Alice might seek to profit by trashing her own reputation. For example, she could plant rumors that she is "borrowing" the assets as a way to finance a drug habit or over-extended mortgage. That is a dicey corner of game theory, because if Alice is that sleazy, she has already proven herself to be untrustworthy in a different way.

In a fully free market, it is very important that every individual be allowed to trade on so-called "inside" information: which means, information that is not available to the "general public." If individuals are not allowed to trade on what they know and others do not know, it inhibits the process of price discovery, keeping information hidden longer instead of revealing it sooner.

Applying this discussion to Billy Beck specifically, at this point I would place a high value on any securities he issued. I would seek pockets of the market where individuals were dumping those securities, perhaps even selling them short, and I would buy them at a discount.

[lunchstealer]

Aside from the obvious categorical difference between what I said and what you said, why didn't you cite that?

Citation done. Meant to post it originally. An oversight on my part. I hope you'll accept my apologies on that score.

As for a categorical difference, the only real categorical difference is that I didn't really mean it. Everything else is just lies you tell yourself to keep your conscience from finally getting you to go through with your immolation fantasies.

[GinSlinger]

All fine and good Patty, but if no one cares about Bob's opinion, then no harm comes of it. Anyone here who trades in the reputation of Billy, gives no flying fuck about me or my opinion. Therefore, your pretty little allegory is meaningless in this context.

[Billy Beck]

"Either you're lying when you claimed to still be working, or you're lying now."

You don't know what you're talking about, and that's why you can't see it any better than that.

[Billy Beck]

"Anyone here who trades in the reputation of Billy, gives no flying fuck about me or my opinion."

Sez you, and you're dead wrong.

It all depends on what you say.

[GinSlinger]

Billy Budd, are you still contributing to the state? Are you, by default, still a statist? Are you objectively pro-slavery? If not, you have shrugged. But, if you make even a dime, for you or someone else, that goes back to the state, you have not shrugged.

Slower, because I know your comprehensions skills are lacking. If. You. Even. Indirectly. Contribute. To. The. State. You. Have. Not. Shrugged.

[Billy Beck]

"I didn't really mean it."

Then why did you say it? Is this a habit of yours? What else of yours around here is exactly that worthless?

[lunchstealer]

Another phoney in the bag.

I see exactly what you're doing, and it's unimpressive. You're hiding behind a technicality.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy Budd, are you still contributing to the state?"

No. And here's your principle for the day: words means things.

[lunchstealer]

Then why did you say it?

That should be abundantly clear.

[Ayn_Randian]

William J Jr Beck

home

1185 Daisy Hollow Rd

Dryden, NY 13053

[phone]

[lunchstealer]

(note, now I'm using your tactics of answering a direct question by hinting that you should look through this kilo-post thread and find my meaning - it's puerile and annoying, and I wouldn't do it except to illustrate the fact that it's puerile and annoying)

[GinSlinger]

And here's your principle for the day: words means [sic] things.

Nope. You can't even handle that, can you. Earlier this thread wrote:

Just to be clear, I asked the local property tax collector lady what would happen if I refused to pay the $2800 charged to me for educational services I did not order or use. She said (very politely) that they would sell my house to pay it. I asked her what would happen if I remained on the property, and she said the sheriff would evict me. I then conceded that she had the upper hand regarding the use of force, and I paid the amount demanded. emphasis added, end of quote

No, you are contributing to the state. You are propping up theft and coercion. You have not shrugged. You continue to exist in the state and a part of the state.

You get your transfer payments just like everyone else. The fact that you think you don't pay Federal taxes (and you do) is not akin to shrugging.

[Billy Beck]

Well, well, homework pays off.

How hard could it be?

Now, then: I'd said that I play this phone number (still in my father's name, although he's been dead nearly five years now) "a hair more discreetly", and when I see some of the wretched irresponsibility manifest in this whole ghastly thing, that's only wise. I expect the thing to start ringing off the wall with chimp-feces any minute now. And if that happens, well, then we'll just see what happens.

Anyone, however, who can put more than about two synapse-firings together in a straight line may call about anything they think is serious, but know this: I will not tolerate the least hint of the sorts of bullshit exhibited here.

[GinSlinger]

I will not tolerate the least hint of the sorts of bullshit exhibited here.

Will you shrug it off?

[Jake Boone]

Shorter Billy:

If you disagree with me, I'll hang up on you!

I'll be calling you tonight, Billy, as per our original agreement. Unless, of course, you decide to call it off. Do it here, though, because your email will be killfiled.

[GinSlinger]

Billy Budd, earlier in the thread your ITGs said I should have given you a chance to explain the contradiction between your words and reality. Okay, fine, explain to me how you've shrugged off like Galt.

What boys, two posts before it's too late, three, or do I have to wait a lifetime for reality to be vindicated over Billy's fantasy?

[dhex]

Applying this discussion to Billy Beck specifically, at this point I would place a high value on any securities he issued. I would seek pockets of the market where individuals were dumping those securities, perhaps even selling them short, and I would buy them at a discount.

and were social interactions like financial transactions in more ways, your analogy would be a stronger.

prices are a great way to transmit information, but i don't know if anything resembling a price is at work in terms of reputation and prestige in more advanced societies. someone may have a great deal of money, or a large amount of property, but that doesn't necessarily say much about their reputation among their peers, beyond that people are willing to do business with them, or people are willing to leave them money - whatever the circumstance may have been.

when it comes to social reputation, particularly in this kind of forum, there is very little by way in terms of price - it's far less clear-cut. however, that same sense of scale does matter - obviously getting trashed in the wsj does more to a company's or security's reputation than the homeless guy on the corner does.

[Billy Beck]

"No, you are contributing to the state."

Words mean things, son. Their ability to steal from me in ways that I haven't been able to counter is not the same thing, and if you think it is, then you're in worse shape than anyone might have expected.

"You have not shrugged."

When was the last time you walked off a fifteen hundred dollar a week gig?

[GinSlinger]

The fact is, no matter what gig you've walked out on, you have not shrugged in the manner of Galt (see the text above. Galt created a way not to be stolen from. You have not. That is not shrugging, and you have used up one of your posts.

[Ayn_Randian]

GinSlinger - Patrick said he paid the lady, not Billy.

However, I do find it hard to believe that Billy has never paid a tax in his life. Ever. Especially since that nice house in Dryden has to be assessed every year, I am sure.

Billy - don't count on it ringing off of the hook. Anybody could have looked it up at any time, why should this be different? Also, we have much better things to do, really.

[Billy Beck]

"Especially since that nice house in Dryden has to be assessed every year, I am sure."

It's not mine, and it never will be. Everyone in my family knows this. I made sure of it.

[GinSlinger]

Ah, thanks AR.

[lunchstealer]

So what exactly is the difference between letting someone else pay your taxes for you by renting (in this case, presumably, remunerating with familial rather than monetary compensation) your home, and just owning it and paying the taxes yourself?

[Jake Boone]

It's not mine, and it never will be. Everyone in my family knows this. I made sure of it.

So you're letting someone else pay the taxes on the home you occupy? Heroic!

[Ron Good]

Ginslinger: as if your personal history puts you in a position to minimize what Billy's done...

But you're just like every other ungrateful second-hander with an entitlement complex:
you tell the folks who are doing something, and who have done something "you haven't done enough...."

Billy hasn't done a complete enough Galt's Gulch to suit you?

You, though, with such high standards...you've...posted on teh Internet.

Wowsers.

And you don't even do that with your real name.

[GinSlinger]

I asked Billy Budd why he had not shrugged off like Galt here.

He responded that he had here.

I challenged his assertion that he had shrugged by asking him about his contributions to the state here.

Here's a little definition of contribution, since Billy doesn't know what the word mean as evidenced here:
Contribution: 1. a. The action of contributing or giving as one's part to a common fund or stock; the action of lending aid or agency to bring about a result.
b. to lay under contribution: to exact contributions from, make a levy upon; to force to contribute, render tributary.

Here Billy restates that he does not contribute to the state.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

No, you are contributing to the state.

Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on the risk.

You are propping up theft and coercion.

If a mugger points a gun at me and I give him my wallet, it is disingenuous to accuse me of "propping up" theft and coercion. I am responding to theft and coercion.

You have not shrugged.

I have shrugged, but I don't always shrug. Sometimes I cower.

You continue to exist in the state and a part of the state.

Yes. Certain people threaten me periodically, and I respond according to the risk I perceive. I exist in reality and as a part of reality.

You get your transfer payments just like everyone else.

Not just like everyone else. I do not collect subsidies, so that differentiates me from some people anyway. But yes, I do benefit from some services which are financed coercively.

I also oppose coercive financing, and I maintain that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. Do you?

[GinSlinger]

Meh, only allows five links per comment.

Here is one of Billy's posts indicating that he engages in commerce (taxed) while driving a vehicle (taxed) using fuel (taxed).

And here Billy flies on a plane (don't even get me started about those taxes, oh, and the subsidies!).

Now, Billy can claim that someone else paid those taxes, but it does not negate the fact that he is still participating in the state.

Billy evidently has a job per here. Now, even if Billy is not paying his payroll or contractor taxes, and even if the people he's working for aren't, if, in the course of his job, any tax revenue is paid (including corporate taxes all the way down to sales tax), he is still contributing to the state.

I then offer him a chance to explain why reality does not fit with his words (as his ITGs decried me for earlier) here

Here Billy again demonstrates that he has no grasp of the English language, and then reasserts that he has, in fact, shrugged.

Since it has been two posts by Billy since my call for clarification. Let me tell you that Billy has stated he's shrugged, when he hasn't. What do we call people who purposefully fudge the truth? Say it, and Billy just might break your nose.

[GinSlinger]

You most certainly do receive subsidies, you just haven't thought it through yet.

[Richard Nikoley]

"So you're letting someone else pay the taxes on the home you occupy? Heroic!

I don't imagine that property taxes would be why Billy's name is not on the deed (he has a car, for example). It's probably more like that $160k IRS bill, probably well over a half mil now.

[Kyle Bennett]

Don't worry, smacky, I won't tell. But it wouldn't matter if I did.

[GinSlinger]

But you're just like every other ungrateful second-hander with an entitlement complex:
you tell the folks who are doing something, and who have done something "you haven't done enough...."

You don't get it, do you. I don't care if Billy gultches out or not. I do care that he, and people like him, go around claiming to be/do things they aren't/haven't.

Clear enough for you?

[Reality]

"Ginslinger: as if your personal history puts you in a position to minimize what Billy's done..."

Ignoring for the moment that you have no idea what Ginslinger or anyone else here has actually done, are you honestly so stupid that you can't see the relevant difference between Ginslinger and BB here? That BB has made claims about his accomplishments (specifically his "shrugging") that appear to bear very little resemblance to reality, and instead of offering some explanation he opts for willfully obtuse, painfully transparent diversions?

Wanksterism, thy name is Billy; and apparently thy middle name is Ron; and thy last name may or may not be Nikoley. And thine ugly little sister is named Kyle (which is kind of odd, when you think about it).

[Richard Nikoley]

"If a mugger points a gun at me and I give him my wallet, it is disingenuous to accuse me of "propping up" theft and coercion. I am responding to theft and coercion."

Patrick, try this on for size: what Billy is doing, what we all do, is to submit to the state; and the reason we submit is that we're coerced into it.

And as someone once said: "they use the things we love against us."

[Ron Good]

Reality (as if....):

Yeah, I can see the difference. Billy does as much as he can in the shrugging regard (and far, far, far more than most folks), and he does it out in the open, using his real name.

My point still stands.

[GinSlinger]

No one wants to counter the facts presented in my posts?

[Ron Good]

...and just 'cause I don't play guitar much or as well as, say, Eric Johnson, doesn't mean I'm not *really* playing guitar.

And it makes me way more of a guitarist than a critic who just listens.

Shrugging be the same.

[GinSlinger]

Nope, Ron, you're not reading the text of my challenge.

No wonder you guys are so screwed up, can't even read at your ages.

[Richard Nikoley]

"No one wants to counter the facts presented in my posts?"

You mean car, plane, job? Nope, those are facts alright. If you know they're facts, why would you ask someone to "counter them?"

The rest seems to be something about how you graciously offered something to Billy, and he shit in your mouth, or something. Something really really nasty, I'm sure. But I'm not sure your assessment is factual. It's your opinion, fer shure, but I don't know what the point is, because THE POINT is that, well, it was established in the first few comments to this post. Have a look.

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy paid his car taxes and presumably his license fees?

So, he compromised with the state so he could have his car. Said compromise was worth it to have his car. Presumably, the car is being used to pursue some other values that Billy finds more valuable than the compromise.

He compromises with what he would call "theft" (car fees) to live his life.

Why not just pay the damn taxes then? Is there really a difference (in principle) here?

[Ron Good]

Ginslinger: yeah I am. You're complaining that Billy doesn't meet your high and detailed standards for shrugging.

You haven't done as much as Billy in that regard (and I'm *sure* you'd say so if you had), so my next question is: what purpose does it serve for you to demean what Billy has and is doing?

Make you feel better about your own efforts somehow?

[GinSlinger]

Actually Richard, I was doing what you and Kyle asked of me earlier. When confronted with a contradiction between what Billy says and reality, to ask him to clarify. Since he wasn't the one to clarify last time (the metaphysical thing), I thought maybe you guys would like to have a shot at it before I pronounced judgment.

[Ayn_Randian]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life"

Are you happy with the situation you're in, Billy?

If not, I cannot understand why you would compromise on the car-fee issue (to pursue happiness with your car) but not on the income tax issue (to pursue happiness with a whole host of things).

I'm not saying you should have to pay either one. But, you've already decided (reasonably, in my opinion) to deal with the injustice that is car registration and license fees. Just deal with the income tax.

What is the moral difference ?

[GinSlinger]

No, Ron, try again. I'm saying that Billy doesn't meet the requirements of shrugging, as defined in the post prior to his answer. In other words, I presented him with a definition of shrugging, he says he has. I then provide incidents where he has not. What do we call the intellectually dishonest? Those who would distort reality to gain (reputation, wealth, power what have you)?

[VM]

Gin et al -

there is some good (general) stuff hier in the
Journal of Pragmatics...

[Kyle Bennett]

Why not just pay the damn taxes then?

Because so far they haven't been able to take or destroy anything of greater value that is his if he doesn't. There really is a difference in principle.

[GinSlinger]

Thanks Moose, I've been a little more interested in linguistics lately as I have begun work on rhetoric and power.

[Richard Nikoley]

"So, he compromised with the state so he could have his car. Said compromise was worth it to have his car. Presumably, the car is being used to pursue some other values that Billy finds more valuable than the compromise."

Have you considered joining up with a commie blog, because that's exactly the approach they use.

You wear it well.

I just love it. Yea, I'm a "compromiser too." Because I have a company that deals with consumers nationwide, I am in battle with AGs from 50 jurisdictions in perpetuity. A small, 20-employee company, and we haven't paid less that $300k in attorney fees since I can't remember when.

I just love it. It's all I can do to keep from being strangled at any given moment by state tentacles, so that every movement and breath requires some "compromise" with the state, and because I don't just keel over and die, I'm a "compromiser."

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for ever using such a despicable tac, foremost of which is that it's not accurate, since it's not compromise at all, but submission.

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy doesn't meet the requirements of shrugging,

John Galt, whom you seem to like to hold up as the standard for such things (even though he was a fictional character in a contrived situation that is technologically and logistically impossible), lived 11 months of the year "in the world", and presumably paid taxes, used public roads, sidewalks and runways, and made all kinds of compromises to stay alive.

And prior to hooking up with Midas, lived that way all 12 months of the year.

So what is your standard for an acceptable level of shrugging?

[GinSlinger]

since it's not compromise at all, but submission.

All compromise is submission.

Otherwise there would be no need for compromise. Do you think before you post? Or does it spew forth from you in violent, untamed, unthinking gushes?

[Kyle Bennett]

...and made all kinds of compromises to stay alive.

Richard's right, I should amend that:

...and submitted to all kinds of things in order to stay alive.

[Ayn_Randian]

"If a mugger points a gun at me and I give him my wallet, it is disingenuous to accuse me of "propping up" theft and coercion. I am responding to theft and coercion."

You're right, that would be the wrong thing to accuse you of.

However, no one would blame you for giving up the damn thing either.

[GinSlinger]

I said: Either you're lying when you claimed to still be working, or you're lying now. You want me to post the link to the chat you had where you claimed that you would not take on forged documents to work? You pay sales tax. You stop for vehicle inspections. You fly with identification and taxes. You pay your property taxes. You, sir, most certainly have not shrugged.

Unless you have a different crypto-meaning for shrugging. Then feel free to claim you have and be called out on it.

To which Billy replied: "Billy Budd, are you still contributing to the state?"

No. And here's your principle for the day: words means [sic] things.

Even you concede that Billy Budd is contributing to the state. That makes the above statement a . . . what class? A . . . lllllll. . . . .

[Ron Good]

all compromise is submission

That does not mean that all submission is compromise.

All dogs are animals. All animals are not dogs.

[Richard Nikoley]

"All compromise is submission."

Maybe _you_ should think, because that's non sequitur. I'm saying it's _not_ compromise, so even _if_ "all compromise is submission," which I'm not interested in arguing, but you cal call "mutual submission," if you like, which ought to be a really fucking big clue that submission by one party isn't "compromise."

Let's break that down, without looking it up, but wingining it: compromise ... co-promise, maybe? Yea, I get it. You promise to pay this, and I promise not to prosecute you, take your property anyway, destroy your livelihood and that of your family, and put you in jail: comprompise: CO-Promise.

Ha.

[Richard Nikoley]

""If a mugger points a gun at me and I give him my wallet, it is disingenuous to accuse me of "propping up" theft and coercion. I am responding to theft and coercion."

You're right, that would be the wrong thing to accuse you of."

Of course it would. The proper description is that he's compromising with the mugger, right?

[Ayn_Randian]

Richard, had you been paying attention to me this entire time, you would have known that I don't believe compromise to be a bad thing.

Your first and foremost value should be to live your life, how you want, in a way that makes you happy. It's not you supporting the state; it's you giving your wallet to a thief so he doesn't shoot you.

You can go on the emotional warpath with me, Richard, but you're going to lose.

I don't think you should have to pay the taxes. But, if you do, I don't blame you, given the alternatives.

[GinSlinger]

Well, I'm about to head out for the night. So, here it goes.

As summed up here. And detailed in my earlier posts, Billy Beck (William J Beck III) lied when he claimed to have shrugged off the world in answer to my clearly defined question.

Take of it what you will internet, but these ITG who said they have never seen Billy lie, can no longer say it, or they too will be liars.

[GinAlinger]

Let's break that down, without looking it up, but wingining it: compromise ... co-promise, maybe? Yea, I get it. You promise to pay this, and I promise not to prosecute you, take your property anyway, destroy your livelihood and that of your family, and put you in jail: comprompise: CO-Promise.

Yeah, as in co=mutual. That's exactly what you've just described, a mutual promise. Do you think?

[Ayn_Randian]

The proper description is that he's compromising with the mugger, right?

Fine, call it submission, if that's what you want me to say.

I wouldn't blame you in the least for submitting to a mugger, no more than I blame Billy for submitting to the rules of the DMV to improve his life, and no more than I would blame him for submitting to the injustice of an income tax.

So, OK, Richard, you're a submitter...do you feel bad about that? If so, why do you do it? If not, why doesn't Billy do it?

[Kyle Bennett]

I don't believe compromise to be a bad thing.

It matters what you compromise, but you're right, compromise itself is not automatically a bad thing.

It's not you supporting the state; it's you giving your wallet to a thief so he doesn't shoot you.

That's correct. Submission, compromise, whatever, it's not supporting the state by choice, and your submission to it carries no moral content.

Pleading with them not to, however, is self-sacrifice - you're conceding his right to take it. Offering someone else's wallet instead makes you as bad as they are. Offering a payment plan to spread the cost out over the next 12 months is suicide.

[Ayn_Randian]

Let's break that down, without looking it up, but wingining it: compromise ... co-promise, maybe? Yea, I get it. You promise to pay this, and I promise not to prosecute you, take your property anyway, destroy your livelihood and that of your family, and put you in jail: compromise: CO-Promise.

Yeah, the terms suck, but what are you going to do about it?

You can either deal with the fact that you're a victim and get on with life or you can whine, blame the aggressor your whole life and destroy yourself in the process.

I know what I'm going to do.

[Jake Boone]

Pleading with them not to, however, is self-sacrifice - you're conceding his right to take it.

No, you're conceding his power to take it. I'd say there's a big difference.

[VM]

Gin et al -

if you're still hier, pragmatics, persuasion, and game theory by Rubinstein and Glazer.

do you think, judging by you-know-who's very absolute, polemic, black-and-white, and terrified of being wrong - that there is a distinct lack of formal education and tools to handle the debate that you and dhex and Randian and lunch have been having?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

You most certainly do receive subsidies, you just haven't thought it through yet.

By "subsidy," I had in mind a check written from a government bank account. Regardless, I have already granted your point that I receive benefits from coercively funded activities. I also oppose the coercive funding of those activities.

You correctly observe that I am inescapably enmeshed in a milieu of coercion. Here are three examples out of many. First, I occasionally drive on roads that are funded coercively, though I rarely need to drive and all the roads in my neighborhood are financed voluntarily. Second, my wife owns a retail store and some of her customers work in government. Third, a police detective has no doubt captured a criminal who might have victimized a loved one. The list goes endlessly on.

Yes, there is no escaping the taint of it all unless perhaps I immolate myself on the steps of the capitol or move to the wilds of a remote Indonesian island. I grant your point without a moment's hesitation.

I hold the principle that all relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. But if I dealt only with those who also held that principle, and rejected all coercion brought against me, I would become poor and then dead very quickly.

[Kyle Bennett]

Pleading with them not to, however, is self-sacrifice - you're conceding his right to take it.

No, you're conceding his power to take it. I'd say there's a big difference.

Your faking reality. Pleading, trying to engage him with reason is pretending he's a rational actor, and that power makes right. If a rational actor can steal, the reality of what rational means, which is what supports your right to keep the wallet, is fatally undermined.

Poof, you've just put your life at his disposal. If you're lucky, he's an anonymous mugger who you'll never see again and won't have the chance to cash in his moral booty. If you're not lucky, he's the guy you'll have to vote for next November to protect yourself from an even worse guy (or gal).

[Ayn_Randian]

Some of us here are trying to change the terms imposed on us. Some.

There are others of us here who believe that trying to change the terms is somehow an admission of submission: it's not.

If a robber asks for my wallet, and I talk him in to taking only half the money instead of the whole thing, what did I concede?

[Kyle Bennett]

Some of us here are trying to change the terms imposed on us.

Nothing wrong with trying to change them, it's your method that is the problem. Your method requires that you first accept those terms.

Good luck with that.

There are other ways, and not all of them involve bloody death and destruction.

[VM]

Then of course, those who "submit" in the sense that they get it crammed at them, would they be pansy asses, too?

if so, WELCOME BROTHERS!!!

*ponders quietly, admires AR's total victory hier*

[Ron Good]

do you think...that there is a distinct lack of formal education and tools to handle the debate that you and dhex and Randian and lunch have been having?

What kind of credentialist bullshit is that, VM?

As if who says it and their alma mater or lack of one is more important than what is said.

In any case, even applying the argument on either side, you're wrong. I wouldn't trot that formal education "argument from authority" out on a bad day, and I *don't* have a degree.

What's your excuse?

[Ayn_Randian]

Pleading, trying to engage him with reason is pretending he's a rational actor, and that power makes right. If a rational actor can steal, the reality of what rational means, which is what supports your right to keep the wallet, is fatally undermined.ight

A little circular reasoning for your day, huh?

If "rational actors" can steal, that means that the term "rational" is undermined. If the term "rational" is undermined, that means people can steal.

Boo...you're a fan of these circular arguments, aren't you?

[lunchstealer]

including corporate taxes all the way down to sales tax

It's taxes all the way down?

[Jake Boone]

To use a WWII analogy (since the barn door's been thrown wide open in that regard), imagine there are four groups of French people in a small village after the Germans take over.

The first, and largest, group try to live life as normal, and go about their business. They do what the Germans tell them.

The second group puts on uniforms and confronts the Germans directly in the town square. They are hopelessly outmatched, and are soon slaughtered.

The third group takes to the hills, abandoning most of their possessions and living on roots and berries. In this way, they make sure the Germans never benefit from their labor.

The fourth group remains in the village, doing what they must to survive. However, whenever an opportunity presents itself, they interfere with the plans of the Germans, and, when possible, work with other groups with similar goals.

Which of these four groups, do you think, contributes the most to the eventual overthrow of the Germans?

[Kyle Bennett]

admires AR's total victory

That's a pretty low bar you've set.

[Ayn_Randian]

Your method requires that you first accept those terms.

You really don't understand the difference between "acceptance" and "sanction of", do you?

I accept the terms because of the alternative. I don't sanction the terms because I find them unjust.

[Kyle Bennett]

A little circular reasoning for your day, huh?

Ooops, for a minute there I thought I was talking to someone rational....

[Jake Boone]

That's a pretty low bar you've set.

I'll say! He was only up against a circle jerk* of anarchoguidoists. It's not like he outsmarted a collie or something!

*This is the proper group term for anarchoguidoists.

[Ernest Brown]

"that there is a distinct lack of formal education and tools to handle the debate that you and dhex and Randian and lunch have been having?"

That is a laugh. Gin has exhibited nothing more than the most disgusting sophistry that I have seen in a very long time. If he thought he knew Rand's canon well enough to cite ITOE as he did uptopic, then he had NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the entire lie that he ran on Billy's comment on the dismissal of metaphysics in 20th century philosophy, since it is a common theme in Rand's work and a central part of her argument to return to Aristotealian moderate realism.

The stunts he's pulled, from arguing from lexical definitions rather than context to enumerating lists rather than arguing from ideas and the actual history of the discipline, would be considered unacceptable behavior in any well-run philosophy class.

[Kyle Bennett]

I doubt that attempt will take, Jake. Try again.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

All compromise is submission.

OK, I don't want to get too caught up in a dictionary quibble, but right off the bat I'd say there's a big attitudinal difference between compromise and submission.

Compromise is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

That definition connotes a process of reasonable negotiation without a threat of force. But if you really wanted to quibble, you'd say that the robbery victim "settled his differences" with the robber, "adjusting" his "conflicting claim" to his wallet against the robber's "demand" on his life. But that's quite a stretch.

On the other hand, submission includes the connotation of "acting in conformance with the powerful will of another," for example a slave submitting to a master to avoid the ministrations of his lash. Sometimes submission can be voluntary, as in "I submit to the decision of the arbitration board," but not all submission is voluntary.

I could probably do more work to put a razor's edge on this point, but I think the attitudinal difference between compromise and submission in our context is pretty clear. When I paid the $2800 to the nice tax lady (the total was $3800, with $2800 specifically for schools I did not use), I submitted to her superior firepower. I did not compromise in the sense of a spirited tete-a-tete among equals in a conference room.

[Ayn_Randian]

There are other ways, and not all of them involve bloody death and destruction.

You're right, and that is what I have been saying all along.

Look, this metaphor for the state as mugger is useful, but only to a point. Who do you think composes the State's various apparatuses? Robots?

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that most people can be reasoned with. That includes the people you have labeled "muggers" or "thieves".
They, too, can be reasoned with.

Do you see the essential difference between attributing errors to malice vice attributing them to intellectual error?

So, the solution isn't to shrug (Atlas-like...you know that Atlas Shrugged was science fiction, right?), or to commit violent revolution (there is a place for that, but we're not there yet), it's to convince the mugger not to rob! That also involves working with people who don't share Objectivist principles, but have the same common goal: making the mugger dissipate.

With that, I have been up way too late and I have a peacekeeping operation to attend to early in the morning.

[Ayn_Randian]

I submitted to her superior firepower. I did not compromise in the sense of a spirited tete-a-tete among equals in a conference room.

Fine. I agree with you.

Fact remains that you did it, you accepted the terms but you don't agree with them. And I don't blame you for one second.

Now the important part is to change the terms.

[VM]

My my. Touchy, aren't we, Ron.

Anyhow, I wasn't talking to you.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

dhex wrote:
and were social interactions like financial transactions in more ways, your analogy would be a stronger.

prices are a great way to transmit information, but i don't know if anything resembling a price is at work in terms of reputation and prestige in more advanced societies.

True.

So, if your reputation your property, and if someone lies about you to destroy it, is that theft?

First, I'll shoot from the hip without a second thought: Yes. But on second thought, I would call it vandalism instead.

In rough outline, I'd say property is that which you create or obtain in voluntary trade, and vandalism is the wanton damage of someone else's property.

One does establish a reputation through a long process of creation and trade, so that sounds like property. One can damage a reputation (i.e. property) by lying, so that sounds like vandalism.

Theft of a reputation might be something more akin to identity theft, e.g. impersonating another so as to gain the advantage of his reputation.

Just my take from one verbally-behaving animal with opposable thumbs.

[Billy Beck]

Ron: "Billy hasn't done a complete enough Galt's Gulch to suit you?"

No, and that's because they're not good enough for themselves. Look; anyone who's paid attention knows that I'm not some kind of monastic or any other sort of Revolutionary Leader caricature that they're trying to paint, and I'm not interested in it. But this much is true: I have been actively pushing back the limits of the thing that ostensibly interests people at a "Reason" blog all my life -- and on the right principles -- in the only ways that make any sense because it's my life, and they haven't even gotten started on thinking about any of it.

Nobody here knows the values that I trade every day or with whom, but I'm the one who knows what and how government holds what we love against us like a ransom. And I don't think I'll try anymore explaining to these people the costs (a curious word; often seen in "game theory") that I've thrown down for the reasons that I have.

I'm acting, and they're voting.

I'm keeping as very much of everything that I produce as I can, and they're interested to cut deals with robbers every chance they can chisel.

That's why they're behaving as they are, Ron.

Now, to me, that's what doesn't suit them. They should all be a lot better dressed, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Now the important part is to change the terms.

Is this a gauntlet I see before me?

[Ron Good]

vm: your post wasn't private. You were playing to the gallery, so deal with it.

Any my comment *about* your post still stands.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy Beck (William J Beck III) lied when he claimed to have shrugged off the world..."

That's not what I claimed. That's what you claim I claimed.

[Ernest Brown]

"Any my comment *about* your post still stands."

As does mine.

[Billy Beck]

"Are you happy with the situation you're in, Billy?"

That's none of your business, actually. We're not talking over drinks; where the rubber meets the road here is politics.

[Billy Beck]

Ernest: "Gin has exhibited nothing more than the most disgusting sophistry that I have seen in a very long time. If he thought he knew Rand's canon well enough to cite ITOE as he did uptopic, then he had NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the entire lie that he ran on Billy's comment on the dismissal of metaphysics in 20th century philosophy, since it is a common theme in Rand's work and a central part of her argument to return to Aristotealian moderate realism."

Honest to god, already. That's where I learned about it in the first place, before I started reading some of that nonsense on my own.

[Jake Boone]

That's none of your business, actually.

If you're going to criticize people for not emulating your choices in life, then an honest description of the results thereof might be germane to the discussion, don't you think?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
Look, this metaphor for the state as mugger is useful, but only to a point. Who do you think composes the State's various apparatuses? Robots?

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that most people can be reasoned with. That includes the people you have labeled "muggers" or "thieves". They, too, can be reasoned with.

Yes, large bureaucratic organizations suffer from a massive dissolution of responsibility. The drones under Mao or Stalin sent into the fields to commandeer agricultural production were following orders issued by other people following orders.

Hell, I have talked to an old man up here who, at the tender age of 14, was hired by US government agents reporting to one Franklin Delano Roosevelt to drive around the Georgia countryside in a Model A Ford spying on farmers who violated production caps on food. Note well: their crime was producing too much food during a time of great depression when people were starving. But, the little guy was just following orders, and probably getting a real swell Mercury dime for his trouble.

Back to your point, it is indeed possible to reason with individuals. I reasoned with the nice tax lady, and she agreed with me. Better to light a candle than to rail at the dark I guess.

[Kyle Bennett]

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that most people can be reasoned with. That includes the people you have labeled "muggers" or "thieves".
They, too, can be reasoned with.

Yes, but not on their terms, and not if you help them avoid facing reality.

[Billy Beck]

"If you're going to criticize people for not emulating your choices in life, then an honest description of the results thereof might be germane to the discussion, don't you think?"

{shrug} Might be.

You're a hell of a long way from convincing me of that.

[Richard Nikoley]

AR:

Just got back from a bit of whim chasing, so I'm behind. Anyway, maybe we're talking past each other, because I agree with all of this:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123957.html#858457

Except the I'd lose part, of course. And I don't know what emotional warpath you're talking about, but it's not important and I'm happy to move along. Looks like I've got some reading to catch up on.

Jesus, you guys...

[Richard Nikoley]

"As summed up here. And detailed in my earlier posts, Billy Beck (William J Beck III) lied when he claimed to have shrugged off the world in answer to my clearly defined question."

Get real, GS. Even if your summary is factually true (which I don't know: I'm not interested to review it, having already read everything) it doesn't mean B lied unless you know he fully accepts your set of conditions for what "shrugging" is, which in fact you _know_ to be false, which:

Makes you the big fat liar.

Liar!

[Richard Nikoley]

"Fine, call it submission, if that's what you want me to say."

Thank you. Seriously.

I said I agreed with you that compromise is not a bad thing, but in order to not be a bad thing, both parties must have an absolute right to walk away without losing anything but what they could have gained through the proposed compromise?

So, in other words, I compromise with my wife all the time, the reward for which is a potentially better relationship, or even having a relationship at all. Either can walk away, and what we would give up is the relationship. We don't get to put one or the other in jail (and I know: it's not a great example, for the way the state interferes in this private contract, and also that there may be aspects of the contract calling for additional penalties, but at least those would have presumably been understood from the outset).

Does that sound reasonable?

[Richard Nikoley]

"I believe, in my heart of hearts, that most people can be reasoned with. That includes the people you have labeled "muggers" or "thieves".
They, too, can be reasoned with."

Well, since you put it like that, AR, I'd have to say that Don Corleone was one of the most reasonable guys ever. And he liked to make people offers they couldn't refuse.

[dhex]

First, I'll shoot from the hip without a second thought: Yes. But on second thought, I would call it vandalism instead.

that sounds pretty good to me. it captures more of the nature of slander/libel/slur.

i don't know about ownership, though. it's attached, but it's also very amorphous, because it relies on many vectors out of your control. and it varies among different groups, depending on your actions, affiliation, coalitions arrayed for and against, and so on.

[Ron Good]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123957.html#858246 is where Ginslinger posed his original question about Billy shrugging, which I repeat below.

So, why haven't you shrugged Billy? Why haven't you shrugged?

That was the original question.

Galt didn't sit around all day writing letters to the people beneath him. But, you do the 21st century version.

I have no idea about what letter Galt may have written.

Galt didn't bitch and moan about the DEA or the IRS. He didn't care; he was outside their grasp. You on the other hand . . . .

Actually, he made rather a lengthy speech about such things.

Galt didn't worry about what other people said about him. He was confident enough with who he was. And you? Well, you'll threaten violence if a meat puppet voices contempt of your human reputation.

"For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you."--Galt, from Ayn rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Seems to me Galt wanted to clear that matter up, about what was being said about him.

So...if those are the qualifications Ginslinger is referring to, they came after the question, and they really aren't even accurate. And the "off the world" qualification to shrugging came even later than the above stuff.

And of course, my guitarist analogy still holds, too. You're playing guitar even if you aren't as good as Eric Johnson.

Mind you, apart from all that, it is interesting that Ginslinger called the person who [voiced] contempt of [Billy's] human reputation a "meat puppet", seeing as it was Ginlinger who did so--but then Ginslinger may be right on that; he is close enough to know so I have no reason to doubt him--and I've seen nothing here to break his claim.

[GinSlinger]

Face it Billy, Kyle, Ron and Patrick, other than Ron's belated, and illiterate defense, Billy did exactly what I accused him of. I spelled out the definition of shrugged, Billy said he fit it, and then Ron and Kyle (as well as Billy) admited he did not fit the definition. You guys can try to circle your wagons, but no one has threatened to punch me in the nose.

I'm right.

Billy (and the rest of you) are frauds.

Some of us do far more for the anarchist movement than you will ever do. Hint, it's multi-generational And the more you reach the more you help. You, reach what, 10? 12? Meaningless.

Here's the deal. Billy can leave, now (and the rest of you), or I will do the proper anarchist thing: I will make public Billy's lies, misstatements, poor reasoning, etc. Your choice, but if you wish to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

You people are setting back the path to liberty by a generation, at least.

I'll be back tomorrow to read the rest of your posts, but, bear in mind what Rand had to say about words. . . .

Oh, and just b/c I've read Rand doesn't mean I think she's an authority, Just like Reader's Digest isn't an authority, though I might read it (like Rand) on the john.

[GinSlinger]

Ahhh, Richard, you don't get it.

It don't matter spit what Billy the Sailor meant. It matters what he said. We can forgive all matter of errors if we only focus on what people meant.

Start with Stalin.

Move to Hitler.

Then Rand (with all, and I mean ALL) of her failings!+

[GinSlinger]

And, after Rand, move to Billy Beck, he's seemed to ruin at least 5 lives based on this thread. Me? None.

[Timothy]

Billy Beck | December 20, 2007, 7:11pm | #
"If you're going to criticize people for not emulating your choices in life, then an honest description of the results thereof might be germane to the discussion, don't you think?"

{shrug} Might be.

You're a hell of a long way from convincing me of that.

Have we at least convinced you that bald, ponytailed and in a Hawaiian shirt is no way to go through life, son?

[Kyle Bennett]

Here's the deal. Billy can leave, now (and the rest of you), or I will do the proper anarchist thing: I will make public Billy's lies, misstatements, poor reasoning, etc.

*chuckle*

Who the fuck are you to kick us out? Whatever you think "make public" means, why should Billy or any of the rest of us care? The people that matter will see through whatever you make up and "make public".

You people are setting back the path to liberty by a generation, at least.

Back at you. Oh, your advancing on your path, all right, but it's not the path to liberty, it'll take you right off a cliff. Fucking lemmings.

Fuck off, shitslinger.

[Billy Beck]

"Here's the deal. Billy can leave, now (and the rest of you), or I will do the proper anarchist thing: I will make public Billy's lies, misstatements, poor reasoning, etc."

That's fuckin' hilarious.

[Ron Good]

belated and illiterate defense...

Illiterate? Really? And what did I write about your question to Billy that wasn't true? Or is it just something about my grammar or writing style that bugs you? Perhaps a typo set you off?

I itemized the errors in your so-called "[spelling] out [of] the definition", pointed out that some of your qualifications came after the fact (after your question and Billy's answer), and generally just demonstrated that you really aren't a capable arbiter of what constitutes "shrugging".

Here's the deal. Billy can leave, now (and the rest of you), or I will do the proper anarchist thing: I will make public Billy's lies, misstatements, poor reasoning, etc. Your choice, but if you wish to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Have at 'er. Ginswiller. Your understanding of "the deal" about *anything* hasn't been so shit hot, so far.

Oh, and just b/c I've read Rand doesn't mean I think she's an authority...

S'okay, I'm not an Objectivist, and it's becoming more and more apparent you didn't read her that accurately, or learn much from her anyways--even though you claim expertise about "shrugging", and refer to her books when you feel it suits *your* case.

[Richard Nikoley]

"I spelled out the definition of shrugged, Billy said he fit it"

Well, first, given Ernest's very accurate assessment of your behavior (did you see it?), I don't hold out a lot of hope we'll see eye to eye (I don't think you want to) though I I'd like to, and I don't insist on my terms exclusively.

How can I say this? I've known Billy for a dozen years. I've seen him kick shiite Objectivist ass up and down the block, and if you're a serious individualist, you'll understand what I mean. Alright. So what? He just doesn't lie. I think he can be mistaken, and I think he can be obstinate about it, as we all can be. But I just don't think he ever did anything so simple and clear cut as:

1. Gin, I fully accept your definition.
2. Yep, I live it 100%

....When he doesn't really.

So why don't you lay out that quoted part above in a way that reflects 1 and 2. Sorry, but there's just too damn many posts to dig through and unless you're lying yourself, you've got them at hand.

And there's this:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123957.html#858617

Do you have something more specific than "I don't get it?"

And just so we're clear, your obligation is to show not that Billy is not meeting your notion of shrugging, but is not meeting his own.

[Cin]

Hey guys you just gave me one heck of a great laugh here, I nearly woke everyone up. Great posts! Back to the salt mines for me.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

i don't know about ownership, though. it's attached, but it's also very amorphous, because it relies on many vectors out of your control. and it varies among different groups, depending on your actions, affiliation, coalitions arrayed for and against, and so on.

Very much so. "Your" reputation is a composite of many evaluations of your character in the minds of others. You have a high level of control over it, and it tends to be a fairly stable phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is vulnerable to others' misconceptions. It is evil to create or foster these misconceptions deliberately by lying or even by neglecting to tell the truth.

It occurs to me that the moral evil here is not in a violation of property or ownership as such, but rather in the betrayal of truth and reality itself. This particular form of betrayal injures and in some cases devastates the life of another human being, and so is a more egregious offense than many other types of lies.

[Richard Nikoley]

And just so we're clear, your obligation is to show not that Billy is not meeting your notion of shrugging, but is not meeting his own."

...one more thing. You can't take refuge in a lexicon or dictionary this time. We're dealing with a _metaphor_. Your obligation is to prove that Billy's metaphorical sense in this specific metaphor is completely consistent with your own.

You can't do it, of course (because it's a metaphor), but it'll be interesting to watch you try.

[Billy Beck]

"I think he can be mistaken, ..."

I know better than that.

I know I can be.

[VM]

Cin -

+10 for the James Bond reference!

Glad you're enjoying this, too.

Do you also want to shower the group with Brown and Yule's "Pragmatics" or "Discourse Analysis" or Davis's "Pragmatics" or Searle's "Speech Acts" all over the place?

'twould be a pragmatics/semiotics/ language-in-use salad!!

But Hr. Best is still silly for getting riled about the education remarks, and the Nikoley is fascinating in its native surrounding.

We're a little worried about Lunchstealer. But then again, everybody knows why. (GinSlinger and dhex can explain the ugly "Tarzan/Jane/ Koko the signing Gorilla" incident where Cheetah got jealous....

*shudders*

[Richard Nikoley]

"I know better than that.

I know I can be."

Shithead!

[Richard Nikoley]

...opps, there was a lesser than, g, greater than after that "shithead" bit. (That's for all y'all. B would get it anyway.)

[Billy Beck]

"Your obligation is to prove that Billy's metaphorical sense in this specific metaphor is completely consistent with your own."

That's exactly right. I'm not responsible to his novelized idea of the project. The real-life complex of moving parts in it is simply not like that.

[Timothy]

I think it's Billy's obligation to prove that a Hawaiian shirt has any business on a grown man. Also, that his mother's basement doesn't smell like a seedy adult theatre.

The real question at issue is whether or not Billy is actually Paul Reubens.

[Cin]

Timothy, You are just plain rude. That was totally uncalled for.

[Ron Good]

I think it's Billy's obligation to prove that a Hawaiian shirt has any business on a grown man

Naah, that's another thread. Besides, Sammy Hagar, Jimmy Buffett and Mike Love have probably answered that question already.

[Billy Beck]

That's the whole point of it, Cin.

[Cin]

Billy , Please explain to me why being rude is the whole point of it?

[Cin]

Never mind It got it.

[Cin]

oops supposed to read: I got it. (damn the lag time on this thing)

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy, you're an altruist. The sad part is, you don't even realize it.

I'm serious about that.

The State said to you "Pay up or we'll break your legs." And instead of recognizing your powerlessness in the face of overwhelming power, you let them break your legs. You let them take away your mobility and ability. You sacrificed your happiness, your ability to produce and to live life on your own terms.

Nobody ever said that the State has a right to take what's yours. "By what right?" NONE. No one ever told you to be miserable about it, though, either.

Goddamn it, you've sacrificed your life and happiness to prove a point. You've flagellated yourself to show how right you are.

You are right, make no mistake; but no one ever, ever demanded you sacrifice yourself to prove it.

And where are you now for it?

To be moral is to choose values which promote your life in your actual context. Somehow, someway, you're living a categorical imperative. You've chosen to enact a categorical imperative that states that, instead of living in the context of your life, you're obliged to ensure the State never gets "one thin dime" of yours, no matter what, even if it costs you your life. You dropped the context...YES, the State is everywhere, YES, everything you buy is going to be taxed, YES, they are going to steal from your productive efforts. ALL TRUE. But instead of accepting that context and trying to change it, you've blanked it out. Your approach is summed up as "At NO time, and in NO place, and in NO way will the state ever, ever, ever take a single dime from me! NEVER!"

And the response is: Even if it costs you your life and your happiness?

It's NEVER TOO LATE though, Billy. It never is. You can start living today.

I am willing to help you, not for you, but because I know that you have a lot of value to add and I'd consider you an investment, if only you'd stop letting them destroy you and live your life!

Beat your chest and thunder to the sky "They have no right to my happiness! I won't let THEM make ME miserable!" Then get down off of the pulpit and fucking prove it. Show THEM that YOU, the mighty I, can be happy, no matter what the bastards do to you!

[Cin]

AR,
That's just it. Billy has sacrified much of what the rest of us never will. His political convictions and his standards for himself demanded just that. He in fact is the real deal. Aren't we all fighting FED/STATE in our own ways? Though Billy's example is still the one which stands taller and says I'm living my convictions? Kind of a "I'm putting my money where my mouth is" example.

[GinSlinger]

Richard, it's right here.

I asked Billy if he was contributing to the state, he quoted me and answered no.

Spin that straw into gold.

[Cin]

Adding to my comment, think about this. Throughout history there have always been people who have sacrificed what the rest of us consider a normal life to rail against governing powers. These are life choices and they are examples of strong conviction and character. Since it's Billy's life it's his choice to make. Yet he can say what he does because he's living it, not just speaking it.

[Elliot]

faux Ayn Randian: Billy, you're an altruist.

He's said it before: he does what he does for himself, not for others.

The sad part is, you don't even realize it.

Man, you've got a lot of cheek to say something that ridiculous, and under the banner of Rand. Perhaps you should refresh your memory by reading what she wrote about altruism, assuming that you ever read it in the first place.

[GinSlinger]

To relate this back to the topic of the thread in the first place:

NORML made an appeal, during a tax crunch in CA, that CA should challenge the DEA because it is contributing to the problems with the states budget by reducing tax revenue. NORML's mission is not to increase taxes, but rather to point out that the DEA is contributing to more of CA's problems than just the dispensaries.

Billy essentially came in here with his anti-incrementalism and his the-good-is-the-enemy-of-the-perfect. Billy demands of us here and NORML that we adopt his definition of proper policy, or else be slaves. Kyle, Patrick, Ron, et al. came here to cheer him on in his the-world-is-black-and-white weltanschauung.

Billy claims to have shrugged because he walked out on some high-priced gig. Oh, and other "things" left referenced, but not defined.

I apply his anti-incrementalism and his the-good-is-the-enemy-of-the-perfect to his own actions in view of his philosophy. I demand that Billy adopt my definition of proper policy, or else remain a slave. Kyle, Patrick, Ron, et al. came here to boo me in my the-world-is-black-and-white weltanschauung.

Of all the people who need to check their premises, it is those who, in the course of 1500+ posts find themselves in stark opposition to their earlier words.

[Kyle Bennett]

Cin,

Re AR's accusation, I don't see a sacrifice there.

AR, that wasn't an honest, good faith argument, it was you parroting ideas that would never have even entered your little monkey brain if I hadn't accused you of them half a day before. You don't even understand what the words mean, only that those sounds seem to be important in some way to those of us who think for themselves.

But don't worry, I bet your friends all think its simply brilliant.

[Jake Boone]

[...] parroting ideas [...] You don't even understand what the words mean [...] But don't worry, I bet your friends all think its simply brilliant.

Right back atcha, there, Kyle. "Billy says... Billy says... Rawwk!" "That's right, Kyle!"

Potkettle much?

[Richard Nikoley]

"Richard, it's right here."

By which GS is referring to this:

""Billy Budd, are you still contributing to the state?"

No. And here's your principle for the day: words means things."

Now, why do you suppose he added the "words mean things?" Why? He was explicitly -- explicitly! -- qualifying his statement because he knew as certain as the sun was coming up that people would haul out the car taxes, sales taxes, and all the stuff they always do.

You're welcome to argue the point with him, but he wasn't lying. He is is contending that what he does is submission, not contribution, and there is a world of difference, in a moral context, between the two. The former is not moral sanction, while the latter is.

[Billy Beck]

An_Kantian: "Billy, you're an altruist. The sad part is, you don't even realize it.

I'm serious about that.

The State said to you 'Pay up or we'll break your legs.' And instead of recognizing your powerlessness in the face of overwhelming power, you let them break your legs. You let them take away your mobility and ability. You sacrificed your happiness, your ability to produce and to live life on your own terms."

That's what I'm doing, idiot, to the furthest degree that I can engineer. There is no "sacrifice" in it: that would imply that I've given up greater values for lesser ones, and it's not true. Your scale of values might not agree, but that doesn't matter, because it's not your life.

[GinSlinger]

First off Richard, you misquoted Billy. He said "words means [sic] things." That is a completely different statement than what you are attributing to him. And is in fact meaningless. (here's a clue, since you clearly don't have one: means n.: an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end. Try it out, "words a method used to attain an end things.")

Second, yes, words mean things. See here for instance.

Contribution: 1. a. The action of contributing or giving as one's part to a common fund or stock; the action of lending aid or agency to bring about a result.
b. to lay under contribution: to exact contributions from, make a levy upon; to force to contribute, render tributary.

There is a difference between contribution and voluntary contribution. Between contribution and your crypto-definition of "submission," eh, no difference, see definition 1 b above. Remember, words mean things.

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy has sacrified [sic] much of what the rest of us never will. His political convictions and his standards for himself demanded just that.

That's exactly my point. He's sacrificed himself to his own categorical imperative. To wit: it is imperative that in all forms (or categories) of life, Billy deny the State money. Even if it costs him his life and happiness.

Sacrificed. Himself.

Rational men don't sacrifice; they trade value for value. I don't like the value of the deal the State has offered me, but the only alternative is to curl up and die.

Billy's own words prove his altruism; he's sacrificing himself to political convictions, convictions that demand he drop the context of the world he's living in.

Aren't we all fighting FED/STATE in our own ways?

Yes, and that too has been my point the entire time. I don't blame you for not noticing; this thread is a monster and has a small light/heat ratio. Your recognition that we're all fighting the State in our own separate ways is exactly why I said I didn't mind the technique NORML was employing the first place?it's a tactic, nothing more. And just because some activists at NORML may not share my principles, we have a common cause. That common cause is the baby. The lack of agreement on principles is the bathwater.

Though Billy's example is still the one which stands taller and says I'm living my convictions?

I'm not sure if you meant the question mark there, however, I would say the answer either way is a definitive no.

Does anyone know why John Galt went around persuading the productive to follow him?

Does anyone understand why he kept living in society until it was possible for him to totally withdraw?

John Galt recognized the context of the world he was living in. However, instead of attempting to alter the context, he withdrew from the situation entirely, and ONLY when it was possible! Note that, please!

The literary context of Atlas Shrugged, however, is science fiction mixed with fantasy. It was Ayn Rand's way of saying "What if it were possible for the productive, the victims of the State, to withdraw entirely? And what if they chose to do so?"

You'll note, again, that this is fantasy, and Rand never advocated attempting to withdraw. Even she recognized that withdrawing, shrugging, was a fantasy, otherwise she would have posited how it was possible in reality! Rand fought to change the context, folks. She paid her taxes without ever sanctioning the taking of them. She lived her life regardless of what the "looters and moochers" did to her.

Billy, you're not supposed to feel guilty every time you smoke a cigarette because you paid excise taxes. You're not supposed to feel guilty every time you pay your income taxes, or your ca licensing fees, or the sales tax ad infinitum. Did you think that guilt was natural? You feel guilty for what someone else has imposed on you. Why?

?if I hadn't accused you of them half a day before. You don't even understand what the words mean, only that those sounds seem to be important in some way to those of us who think for themselves.

Even assuming that all of that is true (which not a goddamn word of it is, you megalomaniacal psycho), does that make me any less right?

Want to know a secret, Kyle? I didn't divine these ideas, Athena-like. Using the logical argumentation of others, I built this premise. I made this argument. That's how knowledge works. So, you can attack me because I've challenged your god, but you're looking pathetic in the process.

[Billy Beck]

"NORML's mission is not to increase taxes, but rather to point out that the DEA is contributing to more of CA's problems than just the dispensaries."

And it took an offer of cooperation to make the point? No sale. NORML could have cranked up a Blogspot site for nothin' to make that point.

You can call that...

"Billy essentially came in here with his anti-incrementalism and his the-good-is-the-enemy-of-the-perfect."

..."good" if you want to, but I hold different standards.

"...his the-world-is-black-and-white weltanschauung."

It's a lot more pertinent than your pasty-faced metaphorical allusions at arms' length because it happens to be true, and it's just too bad if that doesn't suit you.

[GinSlinger]

It's a lot more pertinent than your pasty-faced metaphorical allusions at arms' length because it happens to be true, and it's just too bad if that doesn't suit you.

Everything's a little different when it is your ox being gored, huh Billy?

[Ayn_Randian]

That's what I'm doing, idiot, to the furthest degree that I can engineer.

That's not true and you know it.

You don't need a car. You don't need cigarettes. Yet you buy these things and pay the taxes that go along with them. Why do you think that is?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
Goddamn it [Billy], you've sacrificed your life and happiness to prove a point.

I don't think so AR, from all accounts I've read, Billy is living large up there. A man who is capable of producing happiness in himself is often capable of producing money as well, but after he comfortably exceeds a subsistence level the money is largely optional.

Ginslinger wrote:
I asked Billy if he was contributing to the state, he quoted me and answered no. Spin that straw into gold.

Giving under duress is not contribution.

[Ayn_Randian]

I don't think so AR, from all accounts I've read, Billy is living large up there.

Wow...I'm flashbacking to when the time I watched The Island...

[GinSlinger]

Holy crap! You people are severely dense. To wit: Giving under duress is not contribution.

"Contribution" has nothing to do with voluntary, in fact, to the opposite for at least one of it's definitions. You can strum on that guitar all you want, doesn't change the fact that it has no strings.

Keep inventing definitions for words. Keep up your relativism. Keep [voluntarily] contributing to the problem.

[Ayn_Randian]

Oh, I get it GinSlinger...so when I order my Soldiers to do something, and they do an outstanding job at that thing, that's not a contribution to the effort, because it's an order backed by the rule of law and force?

And when the slaves were working the cotton fields, they contributed no labor, effort, time or sweat to the process?

I just learned something today: Words apparently don't mean things to the wannabes around here.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ginslinger wrote:
Contribution: ...
b. to lay under contribution: to exact contributions from, make a levy upon; to force to contribute, render tributary.

Oh. I didn't see that in my dictionary.

There is a difference between contribution and voluntary contribution.

OK I see, similar to the difference between compulsory and voluntary submission.

It seems that your lexicographical point is valid. I tend to apply the word "contribute" to voluntary situations and the word "submit" to coerced situations, but nevertheless I recognize other usage such as "I submit to the decision of the arbitration board."

What is your philosophical point though? Do you allege that those who claim to resist coercion are hypocrites or liars because they in one sense "contribute" to those who coerce them?

[GinSlinger]

You've finally got it AR. Once you grasp the fact that words mean whatever you want them to mean, you will win every Internet shouting match.

Black is white, and I can prove it!
No, you can't!
Yes I can!
No, they're opposites.
No, white is the absence of color and black is the absence of color, duh!

-OR-

NORML is enslaving us all by pointing out that the DEA is taking away tax revenue from the state of CA. The MM dispensaries are complicate in taking away our rights because the pay taxes.
Don't you pay taxes?
Yeah.
So, are you complicate in taking away our rights?
No, because I don't pay taxes voluntarily.

[GinSlinger]

What is your philosophical point though? Do you allege that those who claim to resist coercion are hypocrites or liars because they in one sense "contribute" to those who coerce them?

No, that's Billy's point in this thread re: NORML.

[GinSlinger]

The MM dispensaries are complicate in taking away our rights because the pay taxes.
Don't you pay taxes?

Ahhh, I see the coffee has not yet kicked in (preview is my friend). The word is complicit, not complicate. My apologies to all for the misleading typo.

[Cin]

Just to clear this up a bit.

AR, The point I was trying to get across to you was that infact Billy's Life Choices, while they look to us to be sacrifices they are not to him. I'm quite sure that Billy is quite happy with his life and how he's chosen to live it. After all our lives are our's and we all choose to live them as we see fit. Which does bring about some issues not being discussed in this thread so I will not interject in that way. I cannot put this any simpler.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
I don't think so AR, from all accounts I've read, Billy is living large up there.

Wow...I'm flashbacking to when the time I watched The Island...

No seriously AR, the guy lives way up in beautiful upstate New York, plays guitars, works out of his home, travels all over the world, builds things, fixes things, reads, writes, flies planes, yadda yadda ... every one has his own definition of living large but what's yours? You're not just talking about Bitches, Benjamins, and Bentleys are you?

Maybe I'm just sympathetic because I live way up in the mountains and I work out of the house as well. No doubt I'm much less handy with a lathe or socket wrench than Billy: my primary skills are in math, finance, and computer programming.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ginslinger:
NORML is enslaving us all by pointing out that the DEA is taking away tax revenue from the state of CA. The MM dispensaries are complicit in taking away our rights because the pay taxes.
Don't you pay taxes?
Yeah.
So, are you complicit in taking away our rights?
No, because I don't pay taxes voluntarily.

Actually what Billy found "fucking disgusting" like a syphilis cocktail is that NORML would use the offer of taxes as an appeal for leniency, i.e. Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

Of course the dispensaries would ultimately be forced to contribute to state coffers, that much is clear.

[Ayn_Randian]

NORML would use the offer of taxes as an appeal for leniency, i.e. Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

So, wait, by using that tactic, NORML is saying it has the authority to cut someone in on the action? That wouldn't make sense given that NORML isn't the state's tax bureau.

Hmm..words DO mean things, don't they?

Are you saying that NORML is enabling the State to take? Would that mean that NORML should be destroyed (or, to speak on your level, "get its nose broken")?

Think carefully...

[Kyle Bennett]

NORML is enslaving us all by pointing out that the DEA is taking away tax revenue from the state of CA. The MM dispensaries are complicate in taking away our rights because the pay taxes.

OK, lets try it at a goo-goo-gaa-gaa level for the simpletons. I will necessarily have to over simplify, but I have to limit it to big enough things that you won't just try to stick them in your mouths and drool.

First, the paying of the taxes is completely irrelevant. Here's my argument:

NORML is pointing out that the DEA is doing a bad thing by taking taxes away from the Cali government.

Do you get it?

Not yet? How about this: if taking taxes away from some government agency is a bad thing, then it must be a good thing for that government agency to be taking the taxes in the first place.

And that is what you'll end up "persuading many Californians" about. The results - the damage it has done - will be manifest on the next referendum, or the next election. The money paid in taxes is insignificant compared to the permission given. That permission undercuts all the progress you think you've made.

I'm simply amazed that something so simple has been completely over your heads for 5 days now. Scratch that, my belief is some mixture of: it's not amazing, and I doubt you ever really failed to understand it.

[Kyle Bennett]

Crap, sorry about the missed tag.

[Cin]

One more thing I don't really call what Billy's doing is sacrifice. It's just plain old living his life as he see's fit. Who does anyone think they are to judge how any one person lives their life. OOOO This one has this and no look over here this one has that. Damn it all to hell that's the reason why I'm getting no sleep at all these days. All I do is work. However it is comical to see people giving a person a hard time because he may have less.

[GinSlinger]

Patrick

That might be the way that Billy, et al. read NORML, but try this:

Shorter NORML: Citizens of CA, MM dispensaries are legal businesses under the laws of CA. See? They pay their taxes just like your business does. Why are we allowing the Federal Gov't to shut down legal businesses?

Is this, at least, a plausible reading?

What NORML is doing is normalizing MM clinics by pointing out their similarities to "ordinary" businesses. NORML is not proposing a new tax, simply pleading that the clinics be allowed to be businesses. Now to anti-incrementalists, that might be heresy, but it looks like a pretty good tactic to remove the threat of jail, and replace it with a nominal (not debating the ethics of it) tax.

Kyle,

If the issue is between some "permission given" and no "permission given" is so great, then why does Billy ask for some permission (some taxes)? Are you guys holding NORML up to a different standard than yourselves? If so, how do you justify that? Furthermore, if the difference is permission to pay taxes v. compelled to go to jail, just for running a business, which should we choose? How is this any different than Patrick paying his real estate tax?

[Billy Beck]

"I don't think so AR, from all accounts I've read, Billy is living large up there. A man who is capable of producing happiness in himself is often capable of producing money as well, but after he comfortably exceeds a subsistence level the money is largely optional."

That's exactly right, Patrick.

For these people to even start to remark on my "happiness" is completely asinine. They have no idea what they're talking about.

I'll make one point: I haven't logged an hour of flight time in more than five years. My own airplane is sitting in the garage in about five big pieces and a bunch of little ones. A great deal of that has to do with money. I started on that project back when I was working at The Tabernacle in Atlanta as well as jetting around with on my main gig: the upshot was that money was rolling in very well. That was before that place was sold, a bunch of weezils arrived and put everyone on notice that they were going to start writing "withholdings". I told my old pal, the production manager, "Look: I can't do this. You know I can't do this." Of course, he understood me completely, and I left. (About a year later, he told me I'd made the right move: they were driving him nuts. He's not there now, either.)

Here's the other part of it: I think about the bureaubotic hoop-jumps necessary to actually getting that thing in the air, and it just about guts my enthusiasm for the whole affair.

Here's a fact: I didn't think that all the way through when I bought it. I very vaguely figured I'd burn that bridge when I got to it.

Now, I'm thinking that I should just sell it. That airplane has been through a lot since its construction started in 1969, and it deserves to fly.

[Kyle Bennett]

why does Billy ask for some permission (some taxes)?

You want to point to where Billy asked for permission? Paying taxes is not asking for permission. And even so, voluntarily asking is bad enough ("asking" as an act of submission to an order to ask or "apply" for what is yours by right is not voluntary), but it is not the same as granting it.

[Ayn_Randian]

Who does anyone think they are to judge how any one person lives their life.

"Judge, and be prepared to be judged...To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard." - Ayn Rand

I've identified the abstract principle I believe Billy lives by (stated earlier). I believe that his life is a concrete example of that abstract principle. And I judge it to be wrong.

[GinSlinger]

Kyle, take your rebuttal and apply it to a MM clinic in SF.

Goose/Gander

[Richard Nikoley]

"First off Richard, you misquoted Billy. He said "words means [sic] things." That is a completely different statement than what you are attributing to him. And is in fact meaningless. (here's a clue, since you clearly don't have one: means n.: an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end. Try it out, "words a method used to attain an end things.")"

What utter bullshit, you fucking liar.

You know fucking damn well he mistyped, so this is the same sophist, despicable bullshit as it has always been. At least, at least, it's so utterly ridiculous this time that maybe even your choirboys will be honest enough with themselves to ask what the fucking fuck? But I won't hold my breath.

Done with you, mutherfucker. Go away.

And just so we're clear, your definition of "contribution" is devoid of any moral condition. Its context that does that, and which you are, as usual -- as a non-cognitive animal (exactly what we're seeing, here) doing all over again.

Bye, y'all. I'll be up at the cabin in the mountains for about the next 10 days. Though well connected up there, I just can't see myself spending time on fuckheads like GS (the worst of the fuckheads; and AR, though we have our disagreements, I can't for the life of me understand how you put up with him: I think your heart's in the right place; his is dark and damp). Utterly disgusting.

[Kyle Bennett]

GS,

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying that the MM clinic is in the same boat Billy is (and the rest of us are) in vis a vis paying taxes?

Of course they are. That has nothing to do with what NORML did in saying that it was a good thing for them to be paying taxes, and that federal policy should be modified on the basis of allowing California to continue extracting them.

It's a very different argument than if they had said that the clinics have a right to exist, and that furthermore the state of California recognizes that right.

[Ayn_Randian]

Now, I'm thinking that I should just sell it. That airplane has been through a lot since its construction started in 1969, and it deserves to fly.

If you think that, stop letting THEM stop you, do what you have to do, and fly the damn thing.

For these people to even start to remark on my "happiness" is completely asinine. They have no idea what they're talking about.

I note that in that whole tangent about the airplane, Billy, you never stated if you actually ARE happy.

Billy, are you happy?

[vm]

Dikie: PWND by GinSlinger.

Merry Christmas, dickie. you know this'll stick in your craw and piss you off when you can't sleep.

GINSLINGER ROCKS!!!!! For the win!!!

[Ayn_Randian]

That has nothing to do with what NORML did in saying that it was a good thing for them to be paying taxes, and that federal policy should be modified on the basis of allowing California to continue extracting them.

Where did NORML say that it was a good thing?

Kyle, agree or disagree: "Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

[Kyle Bennett]

Where did NORML say that it was a good thing?

I explained it above, in the accidentally all italicized post.

Kyle, agree or disagree: "Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Better in the short term, worse in the long run.

[Billy Beck]

"Billy, are you happy?"

That has been asked and answered. Pay attention.

[Ron Good]

from Ginslinger (from the same rant):

Some of us do far more for the anarchist movement than you will ever do. Hint, it's multi-generational And the more you reach the more you help. You, reach what, 10? 12? Meaningless.

You people are setting back the path to liberty by a generation, at least.

Geeziz, Ginslinger...there's only what, 10? 12? of us...

Top notch handle on reality you got there.

More from Ginslinger (later in another post):

Billy demands of us here and NORML that we adopt his definition of proper policy

When did he demand that? He just told you what he thought of it.

I asked Billy if he was contributing to the state, he quoted me and answered no.

Billy is not responsible for contributions *taken* under duress--no more so than the victim of a blackmailer; he's responsible for contributions *given*.

Ginslinger's failure to accept that distinction is blaming the victim. It's petty and it's stupid.

[Jake Boone]

What utter bullshit, you fucking liar.

Uh-oh, Richard. I had an... interesting talk with Billy last night, and he informed me that -- at least according to his beliefs, which he unswervingly maintains are The Truth -- GinSlinger now has an absolute right to track you down and murder you for saying that.

I suspect, if I were you, I'd be hoping I'd failed in making GinSlinger see the light WRT Billy's inerrant philosophy.

Hopefully GinSlinger doesn't have too many frequent flyer miles, eh, Richard?

[Richard Nikoley]

"GINSLINGER ROCKS!!!!!"

Ginslinger is a pre-cognitive animal doing his level best to make himself into an insentient computer program.

You'll follow right along.

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy is not responsible for contributions *taken* under duress--no more so than the victim of a blackmailer;

Somebody's finally getting it.

So why is income tax any different?

[GinSlinger]

Kyle,

Hypothetical:

The IRS swoops in and arrests Billy for taxes and penalties (violating Federal law). The good people who support him petition the people of New York to intercede on his behalf, noting that he contributes to society in a variety of ways, including that he pays taxes that support his community.

Are Billy's supporters in the wrong for trying to find a justification that appeals to people?

I understand that the simplest argument for Billy's release is that the state has no moral right to imprison him, but if that is not the way that 99% of the population understands the situation is that going to help Billy?

I don't intend this to be inflammatory, but your philosophy is a fringe philosophy. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does make appeals based on your premises fall on deaf ears. Sometimes you have to work with the pragmatists to move closer to your goal.

[Kyle Bennett]

You'll follow right along.

Yeah, I'm not even sure VikingMoose could pass a turing test.

[Richard Nikoley]

"GinSlinger now has an absolute right to track you down and murder you for saying that."

He's welcome to bring it on. I'm heavily armed, and this is but a mere small sample.

'Course, the thing you blank out is that GS uses dishonesty, lexical technicality, and context dropping to accuse people of lying who arent. At the same time, he does it knowing they aren't, or in this case, deliberately ignoring the obvious fact of a typo.

He is a liar, and he's a liar of the worst kind: he's predatory in it, which is to say that he lies, explicitly, for the sake of painting non-liars as liars.

And let me preempt the inevitable question: I'll be gone soon enough.

[Kyle Bennett]

The IRS swoops in and arrests Billy for taxes and penalties (violating Federal law). The good people who support him petition the people of New York to intercede on his behalf, noting that he contributes to society in a variety of ways, including that he pays taxes that support his community.

I can't speak for him, but I'd be willing to bet that he would reject such assistance. And I wouldn't offer it, even to save his life. My life is more important than his.

That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does make appeals based on your premises fall on deaf ears.

That's why I avoid appealing to them altogether, unless there is no other choice. That's what you have never been able to see in all this: I don't care about influencing them. At least not as a primary, as a side-effect, it's fine.

This is why it still comes down to metaphysics. You have implicitly accepted a social metaphysics that says that they create reality, that reality to which you point when you claim that we have to be "realistic". I know you don't explicitly hold that, but all your arguments only make sense if that is your premise.

Your social metaphysics leaves to you only influencing society as a means to manipulate the real world.

My metaphysics says that reality comes first, and what society has created is only possible because they've been able to insulate themselves from reality's consequences.

And they can only do that with our cooperation. They extort that cooperation when they have to, but so many people are so cowed, so guilt-ridden over generations, by the web of extortion that they are not only victims of but beneficiaries of, that they don't need to be explicitly extorted any more. A stern look or a vague hint is all it takes.

NORML offered up just what they needed most.

[Ayn_Randian]

That has been asked and answered. Pay attention.

That's fine...I have all the evidence I need. I'm like a detective: I just want the confession.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to take your non-responsive answer as a "no".

GinSlinger, you need to get out of my head! I had been kicking around a scenario very similar to that but I couldn't figure out how to phrase it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Better in the short term, worse in the long run.

I disagree...what say you?

[Billy Beck]

"I had an... interesting talk with Billy last night, and he informed me that -- at least according to his beliefs, which he unswervingly maintains are The Truth -- GinSlinger now has an absolute right to track you down and murder you for saying that."

Tell all the nice 'netters all that I had to say on that, son. Go ahead. I dare you.

[Billy Beck]

"As a matter of fact, I'm going to take your non-responsive answer as a 'no'."

You can make up any old thing you want to, and nobody can stop you. Nor is anyone else responsible for it.

[Jake Boone]

Yeah, I'm not even sure VikingMoose could pass a turing test.

Actually, all this talk of Turing tests happens to fall into my sphere of expertise (as opposed to talk of Heidegger). In my professional opinion, judging only from this thread, the person here most likely to fail a Turing test is Billy.

He operates on a couple of simple rules. Whenever he runs into an argument he isn't already programmed for, he repeats something he already said (generally two words or less) in italics, and then, if pressed, says something like "That has been asked and answered. Pay attention" or maybe "I don't care what you think." Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's sort of an "ELIZA as asshole" performance art thing.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
That's exactly my point. He's sacrificed himself to his own categorical imperative. To wit: it is imperative that in all forms (or categories) of life, Billy deny the State money. Even if it costs him his life and happiness.

That is an extreme and lifeless caricature of Billy's principle and actions. You say that it is imperative that in all forms of life, Billy deny the state money. But as I pointed out earlier, about the only way he could do that is to kill himself or perhaps move to a remote Indonesian island. That would literally cost him his life and happiness.

Realistically, AR, we can only choose priorities and act at the margin. You say that he does not need a car or cigarettes, and count this as failure to rise to the crystalline standard of a caricatured principle. But he does not need a house either -- he could instead live under a bridge to avoid paying property tax (assuming he pays it now).

If Billy Beck rejects a job that requires withholding, and then drives home in his car and smokes a cigarette, he has been far more faithful to his chosen principle than if he had taken the job. It's not black and white.

As I said earlier, we are all inextricably enmeshed in a milieu of coercion. Those who oppose coercion in fact live in a world where coercion is widely regarded as a positive good, or is at least quietly accepted. And there is no way short of self-immolation to extricate oneself fully and realize the utter purity of your caricature.

Your extreme formulation excludes incremental improvement at the margin, and makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR,

You keep showing tiny little hints that you're capable of dragging yourself out of the muck that your so-called friends are working so hard to drag you back into. But whenever I lay it out for you, you go on whistling past the graveyard.

Stop defending your position and start defending your mind. I know you know the basics, try doing the rest of the work on your own. So far, those little hints have vanished in a wink every time you scurry back to the safety of the herd.

You don't even have to tell me about it, just do it for yourself.

Now watch the rest of them try to drive a wedge between you and that thought. Learn from it.

[Ayn_Randian]

You have implicitly accepted a social metaphysics that says that they create reality, that reality to which you point when you claim that we have to be "realistic". I know you don't explicitly hold that, but all your arguments only make sense if that is your premise.

Woah, nelly, stop the train. This "social metaphysician" stuff has got to go.

Where did anyone say that rights existed in metaphysics? Why didn't Rand's metaphysics address "rights"?

What do you think Rand meant when she said "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."?

[GinSlinger]

It's not black and white, says Patrick.

Let's hear from another voice, shall we?

"...his the-world-is-black-and-white weltanschauung."

It's a lot more pertinent than your pasty-faced metaphorical allusions at arms' length because it happens to be true, and it's just too bad if that doesn't suit you.

(quoting me)

So, which is it? Or is your philosophy big enough for both?

[GinSlinger]

Oh, that's not clear at all. The hyperlink is Billy responding to me (that's what I meant by "quoting me").

[Kyle Bennett]

Where did anyone say that rights existed in metaphysics?

Rights, along with reason, depend on metaphysics, And I wasn't even talking about rights, I was talking about reality. "Our disconnect runs deep" (I think that was Jake). Far, far deeper than rights.

[Ayn_Randian]

You can make up any old thing you want to, and nobody can stop you. Nor is anyone else responsible for it.

Yet another non-answer. Big surprise.

Patrick - why are we disagreeing with each other again? I agree with your 12:35 PM post 100%. You stated it as well as I!

Where we're not agreeing is whether Billy's principle is right for the actual context for the world we're living in and for his life. It's not.

[Jake Boone]

Tell all the nice 'netters all that I had to say on that, son. Go ahead. I dare you.

Fair enough. But I'm working from my imperfect memory here, so I invite you to fill in anything I miss.

It was really just a rather boring rehash of the same stuff on the thread. He wouldn't answer most direct questions, except to claim that a) "You called me a liar, motherfucker, and that's not true" and b) "You haven't learned to think." (All of this is paraphrase, BTW.)

When asked to refute the specific allegations of lying, he refused to do so, reiterating his claim that calling him a liar would be untrue. So I told him that I, therefore, would continue to consider him a liar. His response: "I am not!"

He also incorrectly claimed that J sub D had started with the insulting behavior. When I read back his "you have no business on this forum" remark, he tried to refute that this was the first insulting statement by having me read one of J sub D's responses several posts later. He also claimed that either a) he was the proper arbiter of what is or is not generally considered insulting, or b) it doesn't matter whether something is "generally considered" insulting if he says it isn't. (He was unclear on what he was really saying, there, and would not respond to clarification requests.)

I did get him to admit that this chain of logic correctly reflects his beliefs, though:

1) A calls B a liar on the Internet.
2) A has therefore violated the nonaggression principle.
3) B is therefore within his rights to retaliate with force.
4) A response to a violation of the NAP (as in 1) is entirely up to the victim.
5) B is therefore within his rights to murder A.

So Billy claims that he would be entirely within his rights to come and murder me for calling him a liar, presumably either now, or at any point in the future. He did point out that it wouldn't be worth his time to come to Oregon, but if I lived in his town, hoo boy! He apparently also believes that there is absolutely no onus on him to in any way show that I am incorrect in calling him a liar (aside from averring that this is, indeed, the case).

I brought up a post Billy had made elsewhere saying something to the effect that he supported going to Iraq and killing all the people who wish us ill (though he did specify that he did not support Bush doing it). He agreed that this (or something very similar -- I was paraphrasing then, too) was an accurate summation of his views. When pressed on the word "want" in that issue ("wanting" as opposed to "actually doing anything about it"), Billy indicated that he considered a person's desires to be indistinguishable from "immanent action," and thus morally equivalent to actually taking action in pursuit of those desires. Ergo, you don't have to go so far as to call someone a liar to be murderworthy; you just have to wish him harm. Billy seemed, therefore, to be claiming that not only words, but even mere thoughts can, somehow, violate the NAP. This certainly makes his conception of "non-aggression" dissimilar to any other formulation I've seen.

He also, when asked, denied that two rational people, looking at the same evidence, could come to different conclusions without "ethical differences." I'm not sure where he was going with that; he terminated the conversation soon after.

Did I miss anything that you found important, Billy?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

It's not black and white, says Patrick.

Right. A John Galt who swears "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine" does not become a hypocrite for paying income tax on a track-walker's salary or sales tax on a bag of groceries.

The purpose of an ideal moral principle is to direct and guide our actions, not to expose us as hopeless sinners in our failure to rise to glittering perfection.

[Ayn_Randian]

Rights, along with reason, depend on metaphysics

Not quite. The axioms prove the proper metaphysics. Reason flows from the axiom "Existence is Identity" in that identifying things is knowledge. Rational self-interest flows from reason and capitalism flows from rational self-interest.

We don't have rights because these rights exist as some floating abstractions in the universe. We have rights because we are rational animals - humans.

Given all this, re-explain the concept of social metaphysics.

Metaphysics is what it is. Nobody can change that. What you're positing is an impossibility: nobody can shield themselves from metaphysics because metaphysics = existence. How do you shield yourself from existence again?

[Ayn_Randian]

Right. A John Galt who swears "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine" does not become a hypocrite for paying income tax on a track-walker's salary or sales tax on a bag of groceries.

Don't tell us that, Patrick...we agree with you! Tell Billy.

[Kyle Bennett]

We don't have rights because these rights exist as some floating abstractions in the universe. We have rights because we are rational animals - humans.

Are you backing off your claim that humans don't have a nature? Good for you.

What you're positing is an impossibility:

Of course it is, that's why I say it's wrong.

nobody can shield themselves from metaphysics because metaphysics = existence.

I said from the consequences of reality, but you're right, it's an impossibility long term. But it is possible in the short term, and the more help they get, the longer they can do it.

Social metaphysics denies the corollary to "existence exists", which is that existence is primary to consciousness. It says that consciousness, in the form of society, creates reality.

Yes it's impossible, no, I don't think you really believe it. But you've made errors that stem from implicitly, even accidentally, accepting it, and the underlying contradiction of accepting it manifests in conclusions that are wrong but don't appear to contradict anything unless you look at the underlying metaphysics.

[GinSlinger]

Kyle asked AR, "Are you backing off your claim that humans don't have a nature? Good for you."

Earlier, Kyle said, "See, there are no essential elements of being human, humans are without nature."

Actually, Kyle, I was the one begging and pleading for three days for one of you to describe/explain/point to a source definition of human nature.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR:
Don't tell us that, Patrick...we agree with you! Tell Billy.

Billy already knows it, but I think I can square his distaste for syphilis cocktails with his insistence upon driving an automobile. He is disgusted with the pervasive knee-jerk sycophantic attitude which constantly seeks to roll over on their terms. He'd rather see John Galt pull away, expose the gun at his side, and exclaim "get the hell out my way!" than hear him simper about how they'll get so much more tax revenue if they allow him to build and market his motor.

The people who coerce you want you to "get your mind right," just like the bullies in the movie Cool Hand Luke. Now I know ol' Luke dies at the end of that movie, but do we really have to hand over our sanction as an automatic reflex? Should our first thought be a choice between two evils, as in well it's better that they tax us than tax you to imprison us. Is that our standard now, our default moral position?

Realistically, that is probably the only choice there is at this juncture in history, and I doubt many would dispute that. But that doesn't matter. The question is: why should we help maintain the pretense that it's the only choice possible? Even if it's just a symbolic gesture, geez man can ya just throw us a fish? Think outside the cage once in a while, will ya?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Though, I hasten to add, it will not be persuasive to many Californians, I know.

[Kyle Bennett]

Shitslinger, are you fibbing again? tsk, tsk.

[Ayn_Randian]

But it is possible in the short term, and the more help they get, the longer they can do it.

It is not possible to shield yourself from the consequences of reality for any period of time. Reality is what it is; it's existence. How does one shield himself from the consequences of existence again? A is A, a rose by any other name, etc.

You're equivocating with the term "reality".

Is it or is it not possible to deny humans the free exercise of their rights?

Since it is possible to deny humans the free exercise of their rights, that would mean that there's no way that said denial violates existence, unless you're saying the denial doesn't exist.

You may think that it's a bad idea, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

You are positing rights as an axiom: that they exist automatically and any denial of rights, or the free exercise thereof, is a denial of the axioms. Not so.

To paraphrase Rand, a leaf isn't a stone, something can't burn and freeze at the same time, a helium-filled balloon will not turn into cement. That's metaphysics.

A denial of rights is NOT a denial of existence or the consequences of existence. It's a denial of reason.

[GinSlinger]

Patrick, well and truly spoken.

Kyle, did you click on the link? Can you back up your allegation?

[Jake Boone]

Shitslinger, are you fibbing again? tsk, tsk.

Umm... GinSlinger did link directly to where the quote came from, and it's word-for-word accurate, as far as I can see. WTF are you on about?

[Kyle Bennett]

shitslinger, you're not even trying to make your lies convincing anymore.

[GinSlinger]

Once again, Kyle, did you click on the link? It will take directly to your comment from which I copied that sentence. You claimed that I had no validation to call Billy a liar, I produced said validation--you might not like it, but it was there. I ask you now, prove that I am a liar.

[GinSlinger]

Actually ITG-Kyle, since you used the plural, demonstrate where in this thread I have lied.

[Kyle Bennett]

A denial of rights is NOT a denial of existence or the consequences of existence. It's a denial of reason.

And there's two ways to deny reason, if by that you mean make a logical error or fallacy. You can make an invalid logical connection, or you can make valid logical connections from invalid premises.

You've done the latter. Again, you're the only one bringing rights into the argument. They come later.

And do you see the game shitslinger and jakey-poo are playing now? I wonder if their target isn't you this time.

[GinSlinger]

Actually, going back nearly 24 hours, this would be interesting to discuss.

"oddly enough, that's why anarchism doesn't work on any real scale."

Got cites? Real history will do.

Let's see here, we are going to need to define anarchy, work, and "real scale."

Will this work for anarchy: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty"?

But, then, we will have to define governing. A verb pl form of govern. How about this for govern: "To rule with authority, esp. with the authority of a sovereign; to direct and control the actions and affairs of (a people, a state or its members), whether despotically or constitutionally; to rule or regulate the affairs of (a body of men, corporation)"?

Are those fair definitions?

[GinSlinger]

When caught in a corner, Kyle responds: And do you see the game shitslinger and jakey-poo are playing now? I wonder if their target isn't you this time.

Why not just point out the "lies"? Wouldn't that be superior to name calling? Wouldn't that be an application of your reason towards a goal, and thus validating your humanity?

[Ayn_Randian]

Realistically, that is probably the only choice there is at this juncture in history, and I doubt many would dispute that.

I agree with you, but look out; Kyle's going to call you a social metaphysician in a minute. I call it recognizing the context of the current situation. People don't create their own reality, but they do create the context. I sense that Ayn Rand realized that, and that's why she wrote John Galt the way she did.

Patrick, I agree with you. But like you said, better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Do something about the unjust situation we're in, and I don't mean making yourself miserable (like Billy has) or violent revolution. I know that this means long hours, hard work, lots of exasperating arguments, understanding wonky politics, economic arguments, cost/benefit ratios, other philosophers' insights and ideas (AND NOT JUST ARISTOTLE), governmental workings, legwork on police abuse, eminent domain abuse, legal abuse...

Yeah, it sucks. But I've never harbored the illusion that fighting for freedom, and I mean actual intellectual battles, were easy.

[Kyle Bennett]

Kyle's going to call you a social metaphysician in a minute.

No. I disagree with his conclusion, but I see no reason to believe that he came at it via a metaphysical error.

Do something about the unjust situation we're in

Do what? The first thing that comes to your mind? The first things someone who sounds like they've been around the block a few times suggests? Just any old something is not good enough, you gotta figure out what the best something is. But first you gotta figure out what the goal is. Have you ever really thought about where all your work would really lead, supposing you actually succeeded? I don't mean where you wish it would lead, but where it really would lead.

But I've never harbored the illusion that fighting for freedom, and I mean actual intellectual battles, were easy.

Then why have you surrendered them so easily? And I'm not talking about this, this is barely a scuffle.

[Ayn_Randian]

And do you see the game shitslinger and jakey-poo are playing now? I wonder if their target isn't you this time.

I don't deal in targets, and neither do they. We deal in truth, no more or less.

And there's two ways to deny reason, if by that you mean make a logical error or fallacy. You can make an invalid logical connection, or you can make valid logical connections from invalid premises.

What invalid premise am I starting from? That people can change metaphysics? You said that, not me.

[Ayn_Randian]

Correction needed:

What invalid premise am I starting from? That people can change metaphysics? You said that, not me.

What invalid premise am I starting from? That people can shield themselves from the consequences of reality? You said that, not me.

You didn't say people could change metaphysics...you just said they could somehow evade it.

[Kyle Bennett]

What invalid premise am I starting from? That people can shield themselves from the consequences of reality? You said that, not me.

You didn't say people could change metaphysics...you just said they could somehow evade it.

You had it right the first time, that people can change reality. Do you know what implicit means? You know better than to believe it, but you've accepted premises derived from it, and made from those premises arguments that logically consistent with it being true.

If I say "all four sides of this circle are equal", it's nonsense until you realize that it depends on the existence of square circles. Then it's logically consistent with that premise, but still nonsense.

I don't deal in targets, and neither do they.

You might want to apply a little more critical thinking to your judgment of the people you allow yourself to speak of in terms of "we". Or not, it's up to you.

[Ayn_Randian]

Do what?

Change the context in which we currently live, that of the all-pervasive State.

Did you actually read the link to Robert Bidinotto's article?

[Ayn_Randian]

You might want to apply a little more critical thinking to your judgment of the people you allow yourself to speak of in terms of "we". Or not, it's up to you.

Now you're just talking about opinions.

You had it right the first time, that people can change reality.

I don't operate from those premises; you do. You think that failure to adhere to reason = evading the consequences of reality. Reason! = reality; it equals humans' best way to understand reality. There's a crucial distinction.

[Kyle Bennett]

Change the context in which we currently live,

That's not an action, that's a purpose, vaguely defined as it is (change it to what? for instance). The actual actions you advocate all boil down to: persuade people. Get them to change the context.

And what you'll be left, at best, with is a context kinda close to what you want it to be, but completely in the hands of all those people you persuaded - because you put it there. And you'll keep it so long as nobody better at persuasion comes along.

At worst, well, you're about to see, because the "best" scenario is longer odds than winning the lottery ten weeks in a row.

You keep talking to me about the how of persuading people, I'm trying to talk to you about the if and the why of it.

[Ayn_Randian]

At worst, well, you're about to see, because the "best" scenario is longer odds than winning the lottery ten weeks in a row.

One boggles at why you're such an advocate for the perfect, then.

And what you'll be left, at best, with is a context kinda close to what you want it to be, but completely in the hands of all those people you persuaded - because you put it there. And you'll keep it so long as nobody better at persuasion comes along.

Well, I see you've been at those Miss Cleo classes again.

You keep talking to me about the how of persuading people

I never said anything about how. I did give you the why, however. And if isn't a question.

Kyle, in the face of overwhelming force, you can scream and cry and whine all you want to about how you "have rights, dammit!" It's not going to make a difference. The way to get your rights is to persuade people that they have them too.

[Ayn_Randian]

I have made an error:

Kyle, in the face of overwhelming force, you can scream and cry and whine all you want to about how you "have rights, dammit!" It's not going to make a difference. The way to get your rights is to persuade people that they have them too.

Kyle, in the face of overwhelming force, you can scream and cry and while all you want about how you "have rights, dammit!". It's not going to make a difference. The way to meaningfully exercise your rights is to persuade people that they have them, too, and the consequences of abrogating them.

[Kyle Bennett]

you can scream and cry and whine all you want to about how you "have rights, dammit!" It's not going to make a difference.

I'm not screaming and crying about it. That would just be another way of trying to persuade them. I'm going about living by my rights to the fullest extent possible, and widening the scope of those possibilities by whatever means are most effective. If in the process I convince others, well ain't that just dandy. My purpose here was to find others who don't need convincing, who are ready right now to be part of a wider scope of possibilities. And maybe secondarily to help those few people who might just need a little nudge.

The way to meaningfully exercise your rights is to persuade people that they have them, too,

Look yourself in the eye in the mirror and say that. I bet you can't. You'll want to punch yourself in the nose.

[Ayn_Randian]

Look yourself in the eye in the mirror and say that. I bet you can't. You'll want to punch yourself in the nose.

I'll take that bet. I have law school to pay for; oh yeah, and I really believe it, too.

Not only that, but that's a non-response. Try arguing the idea.

[Kyle Bennett]

I really believe it, too.

Then I'm sorry, I'm truly sorry.

You will be too, someday. I hope it's because you figure it out before it's too late, and the regret is only for wasted time.

Oh, dear... law school. I really am sorry for you.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'm going about living by my rights to the fullest extent possible, and widening the scope of those possibilities by whatever means are most effective.

So, I guess our goals do match. Welcome aboard!

My purpose here was to find others who don't need convincing, who are ready right now to be part of a wider scope of possibilities.

Are you trying to sell me something?

[Billy Beck]

Me: "Tell all the nice 'netters all that I had to say on that, son."

Boone: {crickets.wav}

Anybody getting the picture, yet?

[Kyle Bennett]

Are you trying to sell me something?

I'll admit, I was trying to convince you for a while there. I thought maybe, just maybe, you could earn the effort, and I extended some risky credit.

I'm generous that way.

Your means are not effective. Counterproductive, in fact.

[Sandy]

Anybody getting the picture, yet?

Bullshit. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

[Ayn_Randian]

You will be too, someday. I hope it's because you figure it out before it's too late, and the regret is only for wasted time.

yeah yeah, the End Times and the Mark of the Beast and oh the humanity, only dressed up in silly platitudes. I got it. Have fun living your life that way; I happen to like people.

Hey, didja ever notice how Reason Magazine, you know, whose blog you just happen to be on, doesn't just write in terms of "moochers and looters v. the productive".

Maybe you should ask them about that. Hint: it might have something to do with audience size.

Anybody getting the picture, yet?

Oh yeah:

We're getting it alright.

Your means are not effective. Counterproductive, in fact.

I guess field-testing them is the only way to find out, huh? No reasoning your way into it, since there's no such thing as a priori knowledge.

See you around.

[Billy Beck]

"...it's right in front of your face."

No, it's not, Sandy. I was a party to that phone call and you weren't. I know what he didn't tell you.

[Billy Beck]

"See you around."

"Run away! Run away!"

[Billy Beck]

"Hey, didja ever notice how Reason Magazine, you know, whose blog you just happen to be on, doesn't just write in terms of 'moochers and looters v. the productive'."

Yes. I have. It's big part of my attitude here.

I've also noticed the drop to my e-mail box, in which an editor agreed with me about the quality of comments here.

[Ayn_Randian]

I've also noticed the drop to my e-mail box, in which an editor agreed with me about the quality of comments here.

Now who's appealing to authority?

[Jake Boone]

No, it's not, Sandy. I was a party to that phone call and you weren't. I know what he didn't tell you.

Well, that's why I invited you (twice in that post) to correct any oversights, douchebag. Whatever the hell else you said clearly didn't make enough of an impression on me to bother remembering, you incoherent shitbird.

I'll also note you're not actually bothering to point out anything specific I may have missed; you're just implying I did and leaving it at that. I'm sure all the readers are very, very impressed.

And just to preempt you, we all already know that you claim not to care what "all the readers" think about you. Go give your mommy a hug and thank her for letting you live with her, you worthless piece of shit.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Kyle wrote:
I disagree with his conclusion.

Which one?

[Kyle Bennett]

Patrick,

This one:

Should our first thought be a choice between two evils, as in well it's better that they tax us than tax you to imprison us. Is that our standard now, our default moral position?

Realistically, that is probably the only choice there is at this juncture in history,

But I'll get back to you later on it, it's certainly debatable either way.

[Ayn_Randian]

Which one?

Let's see you talk your way out of this one, Kyle. Patrick wrote:

"Realistically, that is probably the only choice there is at this juncture in history, and I doubt many would dispute that."

Earlier, in response to something very similar, Kyle wrote: "You have implicitly accepted a social metaphysics that says that they create reality, that reality to which you point when you claim that we have to be "realistic"."

I expect lots of weaseling on your part, Kyle m'boy.

"Run away! Run away!"

I cease to find your sad self interesting anymore Billy. You can call it "running" and declare victory in your mind, if that's what you like.

I call it going to bed.

Billy, since your stated purpose was to "run 'em off the thread"...what happens when the thread closes? Do you just pat yourself on the back?

Kyle, I highly recommend for homework tonight you read about the idea of benevolence and internalize it.

"General desire for the good of others, and disposition to act so as to further that good."

[Jake Boone]

"See you around."

"Run away! Run away!"

You've got the right movie, Billy, but the wrong part. You're the Black Knight at this point. You've got nothing left, and so people are just walking past you as you limblessly accuse them, in ever shriller tones, of cowardice.

You've lost the bridge. Learn to accept it gracefully.

[Kyle Bennett]

I expect lots of weaseling on your part,

Your hopes are bound to be dashed.

You see, here's the deal. Patrick gets a break because he's been on my side all along, and you, well, you're one of the eeeevil ones, so you get thrown right against the wall on every little thing.

'Cause, you know, what you said and what he said are practically interchangeable.

There, I've accepted your premises, and doesn't it make persuading you that you're wrong sooo much easier!

[Billy Beck]

"Now who's appealing to authority?"

You people are the ones who keep telling me whose place it is. I know that, far better than you.

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy?

Don't beat yourself up too badly over the fact that the cigarettes you bought contributed to the State's coffers via an excise tax.

Don't sacrifice yourself just because the FCC slaps a cost on your internet bill.

Try not to immolate yourself over the fact that you paid for your car and that money went to the government.

Do, however, see that the legal hoops you went through for your car are worth it if you want to fly that plane again.

Don't let unearned guilt take away your happiness.

[Billy Beck]

"Whatever the hell else you said clearly didn't make enough of an impression on me to bother remembering, you incoherent shitbird."

You're a straight-up imbecile, Boone. There were times in that phone call when you could not remember what was being said in thirty to ninety-second periods. I pointed it out to you at least twice.

"I'll also note you're not actually bothering to point out anything specific I may have missed;..."

Oh, I have, but you haven't seen it yet.

The question that you actually asked -- the very words out of your mouth -- was whether I had the right to murder you for cutting across a corner of my property. It was a reprise of you, here. Think hard now, sonny: what was the first thing that I said?

It was: "You're really interested in the edge of theory, aren't you?" Then, I answered your question with a yes.period. Then, I explained to you how foolish it would be for anyone to try to actually live that edge of theory in practice.

And I know why this slipped your mind, and why you failed to report it.

"And just to preempt you, we all already know that you claim not to care what "all the readers" think about you. Go give your mommy a hug and thank her for letting you live with her, you worthless piece of shit."

{hah!} I was in this house the day my father left it for the last time. I designed things exactly that way, deliberately. He and I discussed things that you cannot imagine.

One of them was my mother.

[Sandy]

I was a party to that phone call and you weren't.

That's not what I claimed. That's what you claim I claimed.

[Billy Beck]

"That's not what I claimed."

That's right.

"That's what you claim I claimed."

That's not. If you're going to do a mynah-bird routine, you might check to make sure that it fits the facts. The fact that you weren't there means that you don't know what happened. A child could understand this. It's time for your kindergarten refresher.

[A]

NO IT ISN'T YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT HE'S CLAIMING TO STAKE CLAIM TO THE CLAIM OVER AT BAGGAGE CLAIM.

THE WHITE ZONE IS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY LOADING AND UNLOADING OF PASSENGERS. THERE IS NO STOPPING IN THE WHITE ZONE.

LOOK, MOMMIE. UNEDUCATED ASSHOLES ON PARADE. YOU GUYS ARE THAT FUCKING WORTHLESS THAT YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE GOALPOSTS CONTINUOUSLY TO "WIN"?

OOH! YOU WIN! YOU WIN!

NOW GO DRY HUMP YOUR PENIS SHAPED PILLOWS AND TELL YOUR ELDERLY MOM THAT IT IS CYBER-PILATES.

[Billy Beck]

Chimpanzees on parade.

Look at 'em.

[Sandy]

Sigh. That September never did end.

[Billy Beck]

Evidently not.

[Jake Boone]

There were times in that phone call when you could not remember what was being said in thirty to ninety-second periods.

There's the other problem with that phone conversation. You seemed incapable of allowing me to finish a sentence before shouting something based on what you incorrectly assumed I was going to say. Over and over and over. I, several times, asked you to repeat yourself or to clarify what I thought I heard. That wasn't due to memory issues, but you jumped to that conclusion anyhow, and could not be dissuaded.

So yes, I missed some of the stuff you said, because I was in the process of saying something when you suddenly gabbled out our bullshit like some sort of Chihuahua with Tourette's Syndrome.

Your actual words -- at least, the ones I could make out through your shrilling -- on the foolishness of working on the "edge of theory" weren't as you describe them. You presented it as "foolish because I'd use up my frequent flier miles." And, frankly, the fact that you claim it as a right outweighs the "foolishness" factor. And here I thought you despised pragmatism.

It sounded like you activated some sort of electronics at one point during the call. Maybe you were just switching phones; I couldn't really tell. But if you were recording it, by all means, post the file. Let's let everyone hear what was really said.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

*waddles across the screen before fading away in the cool, foggy evening*

[Urkobold™]

GRRRRR.....

[Billy Beck]

"You seemed incapable of allowing me to finish a sentence before shouting something based on what you incorrectly assumed I was going to say."

I did that exactly once. Tell everyone what happened when I did.

"...I was in the process of saying something when you suddenly gabbled out our bullshit like some sort of Chihuahua with Tourette's Syndrome."

No; you were trying to slide a false premise. Tell everyone what I was doing whenever you didn't do that.

"You presented it as 'foolish because I'd use up my frequent flier miles'."

No; that was later, when you narrowed the specificity to the instant matter of you and me.

"And, frankly, the fact that you claim it as a right outweighs the 'foolishness' factor. And here I thought you despised pragmatism."

You're an ignoramus, Boone: you don't know what you're talking about. You said so yourself, last night. This is an example of exactly that.

"Maybe you were just switching phones..."

I told you that, and you waited until I did. Imbecile.

I did not record that call and I never would have without asking you first. I wish I had.

[Jake Boone]

I did that exactly once.

No, you admitted to doing it exactly once. You did it often.

No; you were trying to slide a false premise.

The time you're talking about, I had said the words, "The Iraqi people..." when you interrupted. You must think you have great powers of telepathy, to preemptively figure out what sort of premise I may or may not have been heading towards to justify your interruption (and, if you'll remember, you were dead wrong about what I was going to say, because your interruption made zero sense). All that from three words with not even a verb.

I told you that, and you waited until I did.

You said "hang on," and I did. Then you came back. Not a word about what you were doing with the phone.

I did not record that call and I never would have without asking you first. I wish I had.

Me too.

Now to the crux of the matter:

You're an ignoramus, Boone: you don't know what you're talking about. You said so yourself, last night. This is an example of exactly that.

I said that I was not a Philosophy student (and I am not; I was an Economics and Computer Science student). That's why I refused to speculate on the "essence of Truth," and I told you why at the time (I don't know the jargon). However, you started talking over me then, too, so you probably got about fifty percent of what I said through the whole conversation.

All that said, you absolutely came out and admitted that you believed that someone would be in his rights to go murder another person who had only wished him harm, even if he had taken no action to make his wish a reality.

Perhaps the "J" in your name stands for Jehovah, because you certainly claim that Old Testament "I can smite you for your thoughts" mantle.

I seem to remember some talk earlier in the thread about checking one's premises when the outcome of their reasoning leads to bad ideas. The idea that violence is ever, in any way a rightful response to thoughts is absolutely wrong, and any philosophy that leads to this point must be either founded upon inaccurate premises or created through faulty reasoning. Check your premises, Billy.

I suspect you won't, so for the remainder of this thread, to give your pointless and unfounded assertions the respect they deserve, I will put every single one of my responses to you (and your little gang of anarchocultists) in haiku format.

I invite all reasonable participants in this thread to do the same.

[Kwix]

Haiku text sublime
Wonder how Billy Boy rhymes
In basement somber

[smartass sob]

I drew on my pipe
And blew smoke to the ceiling
In a great, gray sigh.

[Ayn_Randian]

Pays their fees on car
Pays their taxes on his smokes
But not on income.

[trevalyan]

Perhaps the "J" in your name stands for Jehovah, because you certainly claim that Old Testament "I can smite you for your thoughts" mantle.

I seem to remember some talk earlier in the thread about checking one's premises when the outcome of their reasoning leads to bad ideas. The idea that violence is ever, in any way a rightful response to thoughts is absolutely wrong, and any philosophy that leads to this point must be either founded upon inaccurate premises or created through faulty reasoning. Check your premises, Billy.

*************************************

Now, Jake Boone, I didn't hear your conversation. Hell, I can't even extrapolate your conversation with Billy Beck. But when he says he told you "how foolish it would be for anyone to try to actually live that edge of theory in practice" over the phone, it makes me think.

What did he actually say? From what I've seen of Billy Beck, he weighs every word for a purpose. So. When you go telling everyone he believes "I can smite you for your thoughts" - even when everyone in this thread heard that Beck explained why it would be foolish to kill someone for cutting across a corner of his property, as just one example of a conversation you're quoting from- only one question remains. Are you just trying to throw aspersions against his character at the wall until he finally overlooks a sentence in response? Because surely you can think of a case in which a man wishing you harm (eg: An irrational man wishing you dead in public) would need to result in violence, before he did the same to you.

He doesn't need defending, but damn. At this point, I'm just taking it as an insult to my intelligence when you try and attribute statements completely out of the context of a conversation. I ain't simple enough to let things slide like that, and that's what actually got me out to make my first post on Reason.

Stop quoting half the story, when you know people will want the other half filled in, just because it makes you look better.

Rohan Thava

[Billy Beck]

"No, you admitted to doing it exactly once. You did it often."

That's not true. That only times I ever spoke over your voice were when you were saying something that wasn't true. Just like I said.

"The time you're talking about..."

Times, son. That's what I'm talking about now: all the times that you were trying to slide something past the discussion that was either not true, or when you were ignoring a crucial point was was true, just like you're trying to do right there.

Now, then:

"I had said the words, 'The Iraqi people...' when you interrupted. You must think you have great powers of telepathy, to preemptively figure out what sort of premise I may or may not have been heading towards to justify your interruption (and, if you'll remember, you were dead wrong about what I was going to say, because your interruption made zero sense). All that from three words with not even a verb."

I nearly always saw you coming: just like I have all week long in this thing, and just like I saw Jennifer coming, too, and explained over at her blog. That's because I'm better at context, principles, and implications than you are.

And you still haven't told all the nice 'netters what happened in "the time" that you're talking about. Nice slide. You're about as good at this as you were on the phone.

"You said 'hang on,' and I did. Then you came back. Not a word about what you were doing with the phone."

That's not true. I told you exactly what I was doing as I was doing it, and you said, "Oh. Okay."

"I said that I was not a Philosophy student (and I am not; I was an Economics and Computer Science student). That's why I refused to speculate on the 'essence of Truth,'..."

In fact; the question on which you stumbled was, "What do you think is the essence of a concept?" Word for word.

"However, you started talking over me then, too..."

That's not true: I listened to what you had to say -- to include the bits about "Schopenhauer and Heidegger". When you were finished, I told you what I thought. Tell all the lovely inlookers what that was.

'Perhaps the "J" in your name stands for Jehovah,..."

Nice slide, son. Speak up. What have you got to say for yourself?

Oh, I see, you must think this is serious:

"The idea that violence is ever, in any way a rightful response to thoughts is absolutely wrong,..."

That's what you say it's about, but what's it's really about is known threats.

"I will put every single one of my responses to you (and your little gang of anarchocultists) in haiku format.

I invite all reasonable participants in this thread to do the same."

Oh, this is rich. Dig this, everyone: it's a shit-in. Now, they're just going to sit in it for you.

That's really lovely.

"Who do you think you're foolin'
With your cozmik debris?"

[Billy Beck]

"Will this work for anarchy: 'A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty'?"

No, it won't. You're not going to get to define yourself out of the question. And if you want to talk about what you just wrote on its own, then you're going to have to define all your terms.

[Jake Boone]

Another cultist
Comes to defend liar Beck
Color me impressed

[Billy Beck]

Rohan: You impressed yet?

[Jake Boone]

Go back through the thread
Refute, with facts, the charges
Or admit you lied.

[Billy Beck]

"Haiku" is supposed to carry a picture, dummy, and now you're just waving a stick in the air. You're out of your own pool, kid.

At least you managed to hip-shake around what I said, though, so I have to give you that.

[Jake Boone]

Billy yammers on;
Still does not refute a thing...
Oh yeah: "rippling brook."

[Billy Beck]

"Still does not refute a thing..."

You keep up the Tinkertoy poesy. I'll take my chances with readers.

[Jake Boone]

Mountain rain and such.
He talks; no refutation.
Beck and truth: estranged.

[Billy Beck]

"no refutation"

It's four poems upthread, kid. It's been there for hours now.

[trevalyan]

Billy Beck:

With Boone? Of course not. With others in this thread? Sure. After watching the past few years, ever since I first picked up a magazine and understood exactly how bad every damn person in Washington just FUCKS up whatever they're doing, your brand of politics is looking better and better.

Look, ignore Boone. I have a serious argument for you: you say voting is submitting your rights to the rule of the majority. Right now the majority is just rolling over people. It's not just that they're rolling over what we'd consider a good state. They're rolling over people just for being less than slavishly obedient to the police. The fact I can point at any given week of Radley Balko to find police officers that face ZERO punishment for blatantly fuckin' wrong abuses, never mind any month, makes me feel like living in City 17 isn't too far away.

You're right in that voting without purpose- or worse yet, just because you think one gang of thieves is better than the other- is worthless. I gotta say, though. I don't give a fuck if people hate Ron Paul for the fact a few crazies contribute to him, or the gold standard, or whatever. There are young people out there who support him because they understand real social and economic freedom. And there are lots of people who don't believe the standard lies being peddled by both parties about how "bad" true liberty would be for us, not anymore.

Politicians use the system of voting to legitimize anything they do in the name of "the people." I say we tell them to go fucking die. And the best way to do that is to drain the support away from the newest batch of hypocrites, in favor of someone who believes in freedom. The more people that support Ron Paul, the less that are neatly herded away to serve Benito or the Field Marshal.

And before you ask: yes, I'm quite aware that this is probably doomed. But I'm going to try. I am not voting for theft, or submission, or tyranny. Which is why I want to vote for Paul. What do you think?

[John Sabotta]

It's four poems upthread, kid. It's been there for hours now.

There are no poems upthread, only inane drivel.

In any way to imply that this collection of fools and poseurs are in any respect the colleagues of a Akhmatova, a Brodsky or a Mandelshtam is unacceptable.

[trevalyan]

Just for the record, I think that if people can't be motivated to get off their asses and cast a single, anonymous vote every four years- then asking them to risk jail time against an absolutely amoral government is being far too optimistic about our chances. Sorry, man. 🙁

[Billy Beck]

"After watching the past few years, ever since I first picked up a magazine and understood exactly how bad every damn person in Washington just FUCKS up whatever they're doing, your brand of politics is looking better and better."

Permit me, if you will, to venture speculation on that:

It's because I'm integrated from principles.

I'm not here to fuck around: I'm here to run right straight at the things people say and what they actually mean.

"There are young people out there who support him because they understand real social and economic freedom."

That makes no sense whatever to me in the context of electoral politics.

If they understood that, then they would understand the sublime foolishness of continually submitting matters directly affecting their rights to a vote.

God bless 'em: I do believe their hearts are in the right place, but Ron Paul is never going to work. Listen to me, man: when John Hospers cranked up the first Libertarian Party bid, Frank Chodorov pointed out to them that their problem was that they wanted to "clean up the whorehouse but keep the business". Now, a real libertarian might not stipulate to the metaphor, because of ethical considerations and the exact nature of a whorehouse's business, but it nonetheless points up the basic contradiction of acquiring political power in order to destroy it.

Here's a serious and very complex question set to very simple terms: if Ron Paul is elected, what exactly is going to keep congress -- not to mention the whole administrative commissariat -- from spending four straight years laughing right in his face?

The whole thing that we're looking at is a lot bigger than any president. And here's something else: the cultural trauma that we're going to have to go through, at this point, in order to make our way back through the whole bureaubotic crusture will not endear any of it to your average dolt in the street. They'd take about one round of it -- maybe -- before they're on their knees and begging for the whip. The reversal of decades on end of economic distortion alone would half kill 'em.

All that -- and a lot more -- is how serious things are now.

(An aside: I fully realize that there will never be anything popular about what I'm saying. That doesn't matter to the facts and their immplications.)

"I'm quite aware that this is probably doomed. But I'm going to try."

Good bloody luck, mate. I'm not being facetious: I mean it. But I have every good reason in the world to understand how and why it won't work.

Neither Ron Paul or anyone else is ever going to be able to bid to the bottom of the avarice of the general population -- which is what it will always take to attain the office -- and maintain a hope in hell of achieving what you're hoping for. They'd throw him right back out again, first.

Here's your dry-run for all this stuff: the 1994 Republican congress. Go read the "Contract" again if you want a good laugh, or cry, as the case may be.

"I'm quite aware that this is probably doomed. But I'm going to try."

I mean it again: good luck.

Are you going to know a broken heart when you feel it? Let me tell you something about that: it might take you a whole lifetime. And while that's happening, The Machine rolls on. "The state waxes, and the citizen wanes."

"I think that if people can't be motivated to get off their asses and cast a single, anonymous vote every four years- then asking them to risk jail time against an absolutely amoral government is being far too optimistic about our chances."

To begin with, odds don't mean anything to me in this context. If the odds had been taken seriously by the RAF in the summer of 1940, nobody would ever have mounted a Spitfire.

Your point, however, is well taken, but the reason is simple: they don't know what they're doing. It's nothing but un-questioned habit and the manifest success of public schooling.

I'm doing every single thing I can. And none of it is about the odds. It's about the right thing. That's where it has to start.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'm doing every single thing I can.
The fuck you are, you uber-rationalistic altruistic sack of shit.

You are also a liar.

If you were doing every single thing you possibly could to deprive the state of the rightfully earned fruits of your labor, you wouldn't buy cigarettes; you would NOT have licensed your car. You wouldn't be on the internet, paying a bill that as an excise tax. So don't tell the poster you're doing every thing you possibly can, because that is a lie.

I'm not going to let your Svengali-like guise of Objectivism ruin another person's life like it did yours. You've turned battling the state and depriving it of your money into a religion, a categorical imperative, one that you will follow even though it's made you a miserable broke old man who contemplates bizarre acts of self-destruction to prove a point.

You've done nothing but sacrifice your happiness, your moral purpose in this life, to a bizarre faith you've created in your own mind. You've turned battling the state, at the expense of your own happiness, into your only purpose.

Trevelyan - follow this snake-oil salesman, with his trunk full of lies and floating abstractions, at your own risk. If you don't know, Billy is a sad, broke and broken man who owns almost nothing. He feels guilty at every cigarette he smokes, every thing he buys, because someone else has placed a tax on it. He's sacrificed his moral purpose, his happiness. He's given up what is supposed to be his noblest activity, productive achievement, to permanently revel in his status as victim. It's made him so miserable that he's contemplated burning himself on the Capitol steps; he's said he feels "contempt.... And it is so deep and complete that the only difference between me and Timothy McVeigh is that I have a conscience that will not permit the slaughter of innocents, or even tertiary guilt." What he forgets is that according to his faith, everybody's guitly...forever. It's like the atheist version of Original Sin.

It's too late for you, Billy, you're so terrified at the prospect that you've been wasting your life for nothing that you'll never change your ways. I won't let you destroy others; you're nothing more than a sad old monk who just happens to have a different faith. A context-dropper; a rationalist, and a liar. You've done the very thing they want you to do: destroy yourself in the face of overwhelming force. You took the unearned guilt they try to fob off on everybody and made it your life.

I do agree with you on one thing, though:

they don't know what they're doing.

Then it is in my enlightened self-interest to teach them.

[Ron Good]

If you were doing every single thing you possibly could to deprive the state of the rightfully earned fruits of your labor, you wouldn't buy cigarettes; you would NOT have licensed your car. You wouldn't be on the internet, paying a bill that as an excise tax. So don't tell the poster you're doing every thing you possibly can, because that is a lie.

Ayn Randian:

Who the fuck made you God?

My thinking is that *your* concrete efforts to the cause of freedom have been not much more than conversation--and I gather some reading. Risks in the name of freedom...What did you do? Fail to report some tips?

But I'm curious: how the hell can you square that last bunch of spittle you wrote with this treasure that followed:

I'm not going to let your Svengali-like guise of Objectivism ruin another person's life like it did yours. You've turned battling the state and depriving it of your money into a religion, a categorical imperative, one that you will follow even though it's made you a miserable broke old man who contemplates bizarre acts of self-destruction to prove a point.

If Billy "turned battling the state and depriving it of your money into a religion, a categorical imperative, one that [he] will follow even though it' [will make/already made? him] a miserable broke old man who contemplates bizarre acts of self-destruction" then why the fuck is he surviving so nicely, driving a car, flying and travelling the world doing the work he loves?

There's a big difference between Billy doing everything he can, which he does, and your puerile demand that he do every remotely possible thing you think he ought to.

One is just Billy being Billy. The other is...well, just you being you: petulant, demanding and shrill. And shallow.

There's no reasonable judge about what Billy possibly can do other than Billy. You're absolutely in no defensible position to do it--and that, actually, becomes clearer every time you post.

[Ayn_Randian]

Wm J Beck III: I should have been permitted to earn my fortune.

Witnesseth, all anarchocultists, how your mighty god thinks. He wasn't permitted to earn his fortune. Permitted.

The only one who wouldn't grant him permission was *himself*

"The question isn't who's going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand

then why the fuck is he surviving so nicely, driving a car, flying and travelling the world doing the work he loves?

Surviving...I'll note you said that. Not flourishing, not producing...surviving. Is that what YOU want for yourself, Ron?

Billy is surviving for the same reason that a Christian goes to the hospital instead of praying for relief from his suffering. He permits himself "cheats" in his faith for a little bit of happiness, but feels guilty as all hell about it afterwards.

There's a big difference between Billy doing everything he can, which he does

More lying squawking in defense of your god and your faith in him.

One is just Billy being Billy. The other is...well, just you being you: petulant, demanding and shrill. And shallow.

Excusing god's behavior, eh Ron? I should expect as much: how do you know this isn't me being me. Is Billy a member of your tribe?

Wm J Beck III "What I don't allow is any sort of seizure of my productivity."

Allow...allow...sounds as if he's blaming the victim. Theft isn't allowed, it's done through force:

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." - Ayn Rand

So, Billy, why do you sacrifice your mind to force? Why do you feel it's some kind of moral case to resist the oppressors? When they draw the guns, the morality ends. That doesn't mean you have to curl and die.

the production that has been driven out of my life is going to have reverse implications now that I am leaving behind me what could have and should have been the most productive years of my life.

As if they control him...note he didn't say "the production I stopped"...he said "has been driven out of my life".

They didn't drive it out, Billy...you did.

[Ayn_Randian]

"Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were." - Nathaniel Branden

[Luke]

Ayn_Randian, you don't understand a god-damned thing about Objectivism or Ayn Rand. For the sake of clarity, would you please pick a new name for yourself?

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

*ducks around tree to head URKOBOLD off*

[trevalyan]

Billy Beck:

You're right. It'll take a miracle for Ron Paul to get elected, never mind actually work. It'll take more miracles like we've been seeing, and people who are sick of the lies spewed out of the idiot box every day. But as to how he'd put the screws to Congress?

I'm SO glad you asked.

Kick things off with the pardon power. Can you imagine Cory Maye walking out of prison a free man? Do you think Ron Paul will buckle at the knees because the nanny-staters don't like releasing people convicted solely of non-violent drug offenses? Federal drug laws no longer being worth the paper they're written on- righteous day. Hell, just think about an FBI that has to answer to President Paul. Just because he won't have absolute power, doesn't mean he won't be able to use what he has to gut the federal government. And either Congress will be thrown to a screeching halt by his use of the veto power, or those leeches will show their true colors and deal with each other constantly, breaking the bank and showing their supporters what a lie their pathetic little culture war always was. Maybe that'll wake 'em up.

You say that "continually submitting matters directly affecting our rights to a vote" is foolish. Couldn't agree more. Just because fifty percent plus one says they have a right to take my house to build a mini-mall, doesn't make it morally right. But this isn't my submission. It's the state submitting these matters to a vote. And I'm resisting them with every breath and every legal action. We have to CONTINUALLY resist the state, with votes, money, and action. And the big thing about Ron Paul- the thing Rich Nikoley touched on- is that this movement isn't about Dr. Paul. It's about the ideals he represents, being brought to life.

As for how people are going to get used to living without the state: yeah. I'm not as old as you, but I'm not a moron. I can see the results of their state everywhere I look in Chicago. This is going to be insanely difficult , if not impossible. But I am doing my damnedest, along with a lot of other people, with or without you, and to hell with the Republicans.

Never tell me the odds.

[trevalyan]

Ayn Rand:

I don't FOLLOW jack. Billy Beck would be the most surprised fella here to learn he has followers. Hell, I was actually planning to live out my productive years in a style closer to Rich Nikoley.

But if this is my Huck Finn moment? All right then, I'll GO to hell.

[GinSlinger]

There's a big difference between Billy NORML doing everything he they can, which he they does, and your Billy's puerile demand that he NORML do every remotely possible thing you he thinks they ought to.

There, fixed it for you.

[Ayn_Randian]

GinSlinger - but...but...there's a difference...uh...uh...you know nothing! Monkey! Second-hander.

ha! props to you.

[Billy Beck]

"I'm not going to let your Svengali-like guise of Objectivism..."

Go find the last time that I called myself that. Go ahead. Listen; given your own mutilations of Rand's work, you've got no more authority in this than you did when you came on like this place was your own personal barbecue.

"...ruin another person's life like it did yours."

You have no authority in the matter, and neither do I.

[trevalyan]

NORML is an advocacy group with a strong moral cause. Their cause is that the state has no right to tell people what to put in their bodies or not. We shouldn't have to end to the government's will, on bloody anything. NORML doesn't HAVE to compromise their morals when they SPEAK, but they do.

Billy Beck complains all the way to the end about government tyranny, and won't ever speak to the contrary. He submits to things to avoid prison time.

That's the difference. Simple enough. Surprised people attending Reason don't get that.

[Billy Beck]

"Never tell me the odds."

Good luck.

I'll be here next election, too, to make the same points.

[trevalyan]

PS: Exactly right, Billy Beck. I like your writing, but I don't look to you or anyone else for orders on how to live my life. If I'm miserable, it's gonna be my own fault, not yours.

If I took anything away from the words of Frank Zappa, it was that.

[GinSlinger]

Billy Beck NORML complains all the way to the end about government tyranny over MM clincs, and won't ever speak to the contrary. He They submits to things to avoid prison time.

There, fixed it for you.

[trevalyan]

Your substition's showing more cracks than usual, Ginslinger. NORML just said it would be A-OK for government to get protection (taxes) from clinics. They didn't HAVE to say that. But they did.

Failed.

Billy Beck:

Just for the record: Ragnar Danneskjold never lived in a world where you could drain money and information out of a government with just a click of a mouse or a misplaced CD.

Remember when you posted about the British government losing the information on half their citizens on one CD? I'm telling you: one guy with an imagination could just BREAK a state with that kind of information. And finding Paul supporters is one hell of a way to find like-minded people...

[Billy Beck]

"They submits to things to avoid prison time."

Bullshit. To begin with, NORML isn't talking about anything even so complex as their own individual lives, and they're talking about explicitly cutting deals with the state over all the very worst aspects of the sustenance of the state. Say what you want about me, but I threw all that rot overboard before you were born.

[Billy Beck]

"Remember when you posted about the British government losing the information on half their citizens on one CD? I'm telling you: one guy with an imagination could just BREAK a state with that kind of information."

Oh, hell yes.

Why do you think I publish the number that the government tags me with? If even a small percentage of Americans did that, the panic in government would be epic.

"And finding Paul supporters is one hell of a way to find like-minded people..."

Maybe. Right off the bat, I'll do just fine without that Stormfront asshole.

[GinSlinger]

Sorry guys, NORML was not proposing a new tax, simply pointing out that the clinics were already paying taxes. No "cutting deals" from NORML here, just pointing out the facts. But, since you have repeatedly shown an inability to grasp facts, you're probably still missing it.

NORML wrote: Although the DEA has tried to portray dispensaries as illegal drug dealers, records show they have operated as legal businesses, paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees. (emphasis added)

Read it again, NORML is telling the people of CA that the dispensaries are not operating illegally, as the DEA claims. They are using the evidence of tax payments to back up their claim.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR wrote:
Pays their fees on car
Pays their taxes on his smokes
But not on income.

Yes. I applaud his third choice. Me, I've chosen to cave in on all three counts (though I only smoke an occasional cigar), but perhaps one day I will summon the extra courage I need.

So, Billy, why do you sacrifice your mind to force?

If you are truly "Ayn_Randian," you should know that sacrifice is the act of yielding a higher value to a lesser value. Self-sacrifice, which is sacrifice by choice, is a moral evil.

From what I read, Billy places a higher value on keeping all that he earns than on earning more. Therefore when he acts to keep all that he earns instead of earning more, he is true to his values and is not engaged in self-sacrifice.

As another example, you Ayn_Randian evidently place a higher value on working in that pesthole called "Iraq" than on living the cushy life here in the US. Therefore you are not sacrificing yourself, you have simply chosen to pursue your higher values.

[Billy Beck]

"From what I read, Billy places a higher value on keeping all that he earns than on earning more."

That's exactly right. And I attempted to make this point to that person, once. I knew it was a waste of effort when I did.

[Billy Beck]

Bloody form tags.

[trevalyan]

I know the dispensaries aren't operating illegally, Ginslinger. What Billy Beck and I are saying is, it's NOT a moral argument to suggest that the state's fiscal health is an argument for letting these business remain open. The ONLY argument that should matter a damn in a free state is that selling marijuana isn't hurting anyone at all. NORML didn't have to say that paying taxes makes you "legal." They should have rejected the whole concept. But they didn't, and they should know better.

Billy Beck:

Please. That Stormfront dick is just trying to get attention with his donation. Which is why $500 can make national news, in one of the biggest smear jobs this election cycle. The hypocrisy from every major media outlet is just fucking gobsmacking. Ron Paul's people saw through it: didn't you?

Anyways, given my skin color, I'm pretty sure a Stormfront supporter couldn't stomach me, let alone stand me. There are lots of good people supporting Paul, and everyone knows it, especially the fucking liars trying to stamp him down.

[GinSlinger]

trevalyan, "should," "should," "should."

It's fine to say should to NORML, but not to Billy?

[trevalyan]

I'm not asking NORML to put their livelihoods, property, or freedom on the line here. I'm asking them to SAY something that won't cost them a bleeding bit. And you know it.

You also know the nature of why and how Billy Beck submits to the state. You know that he pays a price for the freedom he has from income taxes. For you to pretend that an invididual should be held to much higher standards than a funded advocacy group is, in a word, disgusting.

[GinSlinger]

Also, since it apparently must be pointed out: The ONLY argument that should matter a damn in a free state is that selling marijuana isn't hurting anyone at all. We don't live in a "free state." Therefore, your sentence is meaningless in this context.

[Billy Beck]

'That Stormfront dick is just trying to get attention with his donation. Which is why $500 can make national news, in one of the biggest smear jobs this election cycle. The hypocrisy from every major media outlet is just fucking gobsmacking. Ron Paul's people saw through it: didn't you?"

Listen, I've cheered every time I've seen him tell the media essentially to piss off about it. But you're the one who mentioned Ron Paul supporters. Okay, I'll hold still while you sneer Don Black out of the argument. Fine, and I mean it. Here's my general point: I cannot categorically stipulate to something like finding "like minds" in his supporters. Yes; it can happen, and likely with good frequency, although I must hold out the qualification of my stand against voting. But, even beyond that, I have all kinds of reasons to expect that a high-enough percentage of them are political embryos with no serious idea what they're involved with, that their support for Ron Paul is not my test.

[Billy Beck]

"We don't live in a 'free state.'"

You could see the light beginning to shine in on this person.

[GinSlinger]

For you to pretend that an invididual [sic] should be held to much higher standards than a funded advocacy group is, in a word, disgusting.

You're telling me that the people working for NORML don't make sacrifices? To paraphrase Billy here, "you don't even know them."

[GinSlinger]

Billy, I've never claimed that we live in a free state. You are expecting actions that don't fit reality, though, if you are insisting that people behave as if they are in a free state.

Now who's metaphysics is recreating reality?

[Billy Beck]

"You're telling me that the people working for NORML don't make sacrifices?"

Well, they're ready to "sacrifice" other peoples' money to state coffers. We have to give 'em that.

[Billy Beck]

"...if you are insisting that people behave as if they are in a free state."

That is exactly what I am not insisting.

[trevalyan]

Here's my general point: I cannot categorically stipulate to something like finding "like minds" in his supporters. Yes; it can happen, and likely with good frequency, although I must hold out the qualification of my stand against voting.

An entirely fair stance. I imagine Paul has lots of supporters that I personally would find repugnant. I didn't say all of them would be my BFF. But there's people I've watched out there that I would support. Which is why I can state that I can find good people among his lot.

I'm not denying that Ron Paul probably knows neo-Nazis that will vote for him. I'm also watching the bloody tossers having a field day with a single photograph, going off half-cocked as always before actually getting facts on this donation and what it means to the Paul campaign. I can see through smears, and that's why I'm dismissing the Don Black episode. Don't think I just put uncomfortable things right out of my mind. I don't play that.

[trevalyan]

You're telling me that the people working for NORML don't make sacrifices? To paraphrase Billy here, "you don't even know them."

Individually, I can imagine there's at least one libertarian in their number, perhaps more dedicated to throwing off the state than I am. But the organization made the decision to support state tyranny even when it does not add a jot of morality to their argument, and that's what I'm finding fault with.

You keep dancing around this salient point with misdirection, and I'm absolutely gonna hit that point until my fingertips bleed.

[Billy Beck]

"Don't think I just put uncomfortable things right out of my mind."

I don't.

[Ayn_Randian]

"What I don't allow is any sort of seizure of my productivity." - Wm J Beck III

Patrick, read this and figure out why Billy is lying here.

I've chosen to cave in on all three counts

You feel guilty about this? Why? It ceased to be a moral question once the gun was pointed at you, Patrick. The person holding the gun is at fault, not you.

[Ayn_Randian]

But the organization made the decision to support state tyranny even when it does not add a jot of morality to their argument, and that's what I'm finding fault with.

They supported state tyranny? Really? How?

Here we see so-called Objectivists ascribing to the notion of collective guilt.

[GinSlinger]

But the organization made the decision to support state tyranny even when it does not add a jot of morality to their argument, and that's what I'm finding fault with.

They support tyranny in the same way that you, Kyle, Patrick, Mike S., Ron, John, and Billy support tyranny. They suggest that paying taxes is preferable to prison, if those are the only choices.

From CANORML's website: Our mission is to establish the right of adults to use cannabis legally. We publish a newsletter, lobby lawmakers, sponsor events, offer legal, educational, and consumer health advice, and sponsor scientific research.

Once again: "to establish the right of adults to use cannabis legally." Now, you might want to nitpick that they cannot establish rights, but that is just one view of rights, and not necessarily the most convincing . . . .

[trevalyan]

I don't.

Thanks. What worries the shit out of me, though, is how easily people will stay only on Instapundit and Daily Kos without even trying to expand their minds. Couldn't let anyone, especially not you, think I was like that.

A million channels, and we're busy setting up a new Big Three. Enough to make you cry.

Randian: Come now.

What Billy Beck and I are saying is, it's NOT a moral argument to suggest that the state's fiscal health is an argument for letting these business (sic) remain open. The ONLY argument that should matter a damn in a free state is that selling marijuana isn't hurting anyone at all. NORML didn't have to say that paying taxes makes you "legal." They should have rejected the whole concept. But they didn't, and they should know better.

I can copy-paste this argument all day. Ball's in your court.

[Billy Beck]

"Patrick, read this and figure out why Billy is lying here."

Cite that. Let me tell you something: this is something that we might profitably discuss, but it's not going to happen as long as you keep saying what is simply not true.

"Here we see so-called Objectivists ascribing to the notion of collective guilt."

That's not true, either, but astute and informed observers are able to see what you have to do with Objectivism.

[Billy Beck]

"Once again: 'to establish the right of adults to use cannabis legally.' Now, you might want to nitpick that they cannot establish rights, but that is just one view of rights, and not necessarily the most convincing . . . ."

Post-modern relativist. You're out of the pool, son.

[trevalyan]

[Ayn_Randian]

Randian: Come now.

Non-responsive. FAIL.

[trevalyan]

Once again: "to establish the right of adults to use cannabis legally." Now, you might want to nitpick that they cannot establish rights, but that is just one view of rights, and not necessarily the most convincing . . . .

There it is... the whole corrupt core of your argument, right there. The state doesn't have ANY fuckin' right to tell me what I can and can't ingest. If I sip some Blue label right there on the street, a pig does NOT have the right to arrest me. If NORML just wants to make the case that marijuana specifically shouldn't be on the Verboten list, they've already lost. And that's what pisses me off so much.

Ayn_Randian:

They supported state tyranny? Really? How?

Once more, for the hard of thinking.

What Billy Beck and I are saying is, it's NOT a moral argument to suggest that the state's fiscal health is an argument for letting these business (sic) remain open. The ONLY argument that should matter a damn in a free state is that selling marijuana isn't hurting anyone at all. NORML didn't have to say that paying taxes makes you "legal." They should have rejected the whole concept. But they didn't, and they should know better.

I can play the Ctrl-C, Ctrl-P game all day, boyo.

[Billy Beck]

"Non-responsive."

Bullshit. The beans in your ears are not his responsibility.

[Gee]

Billy,

Regarding electoral politics, I agree with everything you've stated here, yet this libertarian is voting for Ron Paul.

It's not about "if Ron Paul is elected".

My vote and support is instead all about:

1)A libertarian message that is getting exposed, via Paul's campaign, to the masses, 90+% of whom can't currently even SPELL libertarian. The more successful his campaign, the wider and deeper the message travels. Of COURSE his success (even winning the office) won't result in the state doing an immediate 180, but it may help facilitate the battle lines being drawn clearly and quicker, and that's a good thing IMO.

2)The entertainment value. There have already been countless priceless moments of Ron Paul spitting in the eyes of the authoritarian nanny-state and the complicit MSM, and it's only just begun. I will continue to support the effort with my vote, money and sweat, and continue to grab the popcorn and enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts. I'm buying THAT value.

[GinSlinger]

Once again, trevalayn, there is no "free state." So, any arguments morally correct for a free state, are not necessarily correct in a non-free state.

Billy, it is you that invent new meanings for words and insist on context over text, that is nearly a Cliff's Notes version of post-modernism. You'll find that I have been staunchly opposed to your relativism on this thread.

[GinSlinger]

If your senses tell you that we are not living in a free state, to continue to demand actions as if we are living in a free state is what, lunacy? You'll deny your sense for the sake of argument? You'll allow your metaphysics to recast reality to fit your conceptions despite the violation of your perceptions?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR:

"What I don't allow is any sort of seizure of my productivity." - Wm J Beck III

Patrick, read this and figure out why Billy is lying here.

I'll focus on the accuracy of his statement. When Mr. Beck produces something of value for another individual, the other individual gives him something of value in exchange. Billy keeps the whole thing, and does not allow anyone to seize a portion of it merely because an event of production occurred.

Then Billy runs down to the grocery store and pays a sales tax. Drat. Someone just seized a portion of his wealth merely because an event of consumption occurred.

Then someone else sends Billy a notice demanding that he pay money merely because he has owned an object of value for a full year: in this case the event was owning property for a period of time.

Coercive demands for money are triggered by events, for example: production, consumption, owning something of value for a period of time, or carrying something of value across a geographic boundary.

The simple fact is that Billy does not respond to demands for money triggered by the event of his productive activity.

Now I am sure we will hear the blot-out-the-sun AHA! retort that when Billy buys food, he is forfeiting a portion of the money he originally earned in productive activity over to the state at the point of sale. Nevertheless, this particular forfeit is triggered by the event of consumption, and Billy has very little choice in this matter.

Quite simply, money is fungible. If the girlfriend of a bank robber buys a dress at my wife's store with stolen money, and my wife knows nothing about this, then my wife is not guilty of receiving stolen funds. This begs the question of what happens if my wife knowingly sells clothing to the county tax assessor, and there I can only say that there is a limit to what a human being can be expected to endure for the sake of principle.

Folks like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and John Lewis were thrown in jail and got their heads cracked open for acting on their principles. Perhaps my wife should tell the tax assessor to take a hike, at considerable risk to her self and her business. But to expect Billy Beck to avoid shopping at grocery stores is a bit much. And certainly carping on a cigarette purchase is like straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Regarding the strict accuracy of Billy Beck's statement, I will just say specifically that he does not submit to coercive demands triggered by the event of his productive activity.

[trevalyan]

Ginslinger, you relativist asshole, my argument is absolutely morally correct, whether the state is free or not free. Americans SAY they are free- which is why my argument is morally correct by their assumed premises. It's the state that needs correcting. NOT me. I demand the state own up to the morals it pretends to revere, and that people open their fucking eyes to exactly how far short of the mark we have fallen. I certainly demand that we not pretend the state's financial health has ANY bearing on what is morally right or wrong, especially when NORML will suffer no negative consequence for refusing to take the tack of "we don't have the money to arrest people who just want a toke, that's why we shouldn't."

Stop horse-shitting me. Even without formal training in philosophy, I can see right through you.

[Billy Beck]

Gee: I understand. Your two points cover just about the full extent of my interest in Ron Paul.

I would only point out to you that voting is far more serious a moral question than the play that's getting in your statement of your position.

You could have all of what you describe without actually voting.

[Ayn_Randian]

If NORML just wants to make the case that marijuana specifically shouldn't be on the Verboten list, they've already lost. And that's what pisses me off so much.

You're conflating the moral and the political. You're saying that they absolutely must conform to your ethical code in order for them to be right politically.

Morality is agent-relative,. You act like it exists as some floating abstraction.

Bullshit. The beans in your ears are not his responsibility.

Simper, simper, little monk. It's not my fault you refused to live your life morally because of the political context in which you live.

Answer this: Rand lived her own philosophy. She didn't try to shrug...she wrote books. Wonder why that is?

[Billy Beck]

"When Mr. Beck produces something of value for another individual, the other individual gives him something of value in exchange."

Yes, Patrick. That's a crucial insight of really profound depth.

[trevalyan]

You're conflating the moral and the political. You're saying that they absolutely must conform to your ethical code in order for them to be right politically.

Morality is agent-relative,. You act like it exists as some floating abstraction.

[GinSlinger]

Americans SAY they are free- which is why my argument is morally correct by their assumed premises.

What people say they are, is not necessarily what they are. If someone came to you and claimed to be a doctor, would you allow them to perform surgery based on "their assumed premises"?

[Urkobold?]

I SMELL CHICKEN!

[trevalyan]

*annoyed* These goddamn form tags. Swear to God.

Anyways, that's damn well right, AYN RANDIAN. The moral and the political absolutely fucking intersect- I can't believe you have the gonads to wear that tagname and deny that fact. The heart of the matter is, the state should not be asked permission to do things. You should make a conscious choice. That morality is absolute, who gives a fuck what the state thinks. They can force me to outwardly conform, but I will make my choice.

A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS.

[GinSlinger]

To make it even more direct, is it "morally correct" for the non-doctor to perform surgery based on his "assumed premise" that he is a doctor?

If that's the case, you have entered the realm of relativism, not me.

[Billy Beck]

"Rand lived her own philosophy. She didn't try to shrug...she wrote books. Wonder why that is?"

That's patently ridiculous. Let me give you a clue, son: she didn't write Winnie The Pooh".

She also said that "it's earlier than you think". She said it nearly three decades ago, when it was arguably true, but it's not anymore.

[Ayn_Randian]

Patrick -

What the hell does "any sort of seizure" mean to you, anyway?

I can only say that there is a limit to what a human being can be expected to endure for the sake of principle.

You're not supposed to live for the sake of principle, Patrick. You're supposed to live for your own sake. Whose principle is Billy "enduring" under? *His own*.

Again, you're conflating the ethical and the political.

[GinSlinger]

So, Patrick, by your argument:

National consumption tax = morally good (or neutral)

National Income Tax = morally bad

?

Either way, the state demands a portion.

[Billy Beck]

"You're not supposed to live for the sake of principle, Patrick. You're supposed to live for your own sake."

As if the two are mutually exclusive.

"Again, you're conflating the ethical and the political."

You're an idiot, with no warrant whatever to use the name that you do. One of the very first things to understand about Objectivism is the hierarchical structure of this stuff. You are, and always have been, the most outrageous fraud in this whole mess.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

travalyan paraphrased:
"we don't have the money to arrest people who just want a toke, that's why we shouldn't."

Now there's a succinct and hilarious summary of the "pragmatic" argument in play: so deeply twisted, it induces vertigo.

[Ayn_Randian]

The moral and the political absolutely fucking intersect

Where did I say that they didn't intersect?

That morality is absolute, who gives a fuck what the state thinks.

Absolute to whom? And the state can't think...you're anthropomorphizing the state.

the state should not be asked permission to do things.

Really? Are you saying that it's imperative that we categorically never ask the state for anything? Even if it's to live?

Way to go, Kant.

[trevalyan]

Thanks, Patrick.

Ginslinger:

To make it even more direct, is it "morally correct" for the non-doctor to perform surgery based on his "assumed premise" that he is a doctor?

Dude, lay off the crazy pills. I'm shaming people into confronting their moral facade and deciding what they really value. You run away from the discussion and segue into a wild sideshow with no basis in reality. I see what you did there.

One last time. I don't give a flying leap if the state doesn't like my thinking. My arguments aren't correct by the current law BECAUSE THE CURRENT LAW IS HORSESHIT. And if a phony doctor tries to convince me HIS horseshit is real when it has no grounding in knowledge, I'll cut myself open first. Generally, I don't respect horseshit or convince others to support it. That gotten through to you yet, Pooky?

[Ayn_Randian]

You're an idiot, with no warrant whatever to use the name that you do.

My choices don't come by "warrant" of anybody, Billy.

I suggest you start acting the same way, before you descend even further in to misery.

One of the very first things to understand about Objectivism is the hierarchical structure of this stuff.

I understand the hierarchy, silly little monk. You're the one who has mashed it all together.

[trevalyan]

Ayn Randian:

Really? Are you saying that it's imperative that we categorically never ask the state for anything? Even if it's to live?

Even the most broken communists wouldn't ask the state for permission to LIVE. And the state is ruled by people who "think": therefore, government assuredly has a mind.

Randian, indeed. I ain't playing word games here, so don't try. Because I'll call it out for the garbage it is.

[Kyle Bennett]

A million channels, and we're busy setting up a new Big Three. Enough to make you cry.

Though I don't fully accept your conclusion, there is a kernel of truth in it, and it's interesting to work through the implications. We were given complete freedom on a silver platter - in the context of news dissemination, at least - and this is what most of them decide to do with it.

Let's dream for a moment that Ron Paul is successful beyond your wildest dreams, and gives the whole country political freedom on a silver platter.

They'll do exactly the same thing. The state is a symptom, and Ron Paul might end up being a band-aid, maybe at best, a tourniquet. Sure, it's good to slow the bleeding for a while, but it won't cure he disease. And I can see a potential to make things worse, given the premises that have to be accepted in order to expect anything from the whole deal.

That's not to criticize you or Gee for your choices, and I'm pretty sure you're not subscribing the the idea of voting as a duty or even a solution, but for me, even given the possible benefits, it's still too expensive.

[Kyle Bennett]

She also said that "it's earlier than you think". She said it nearly three decades ago, when it was arguably true, but it's not anymore.

Wouldn't McCain-Feingold, at least, meet her criteria? Though I think her narrowly limited criteria allowed too much to be lost before declaring it too late. Did she ever imagine the intellectual and moral holocaust that would be wrought by public education, and how it would render free speech nearly moot?

[Kyle Bennett]

As if the two are mutually exclusive.

That he comes from a place where they are is revealing.

[Ayn_Randian]

As if the two are mutually exclusive.

If your principles lead to your unhappiness, you need to check your premises.

You think that your principle is the route to happiness?

Forgive me if I find that patently ridiculous.

Generally speaking happy people don't consider immolating themselves on the Capitol steps. Nor do they show utter and rank contempt for almost all of humanity.

In addition, ethical people do not allow their pursuit of happiness to rise and fall with the political context. They can be unhappy with the situation, the context of politics, but that doesn't mean they should suspend their moral purpose in life.

You all are letting the suboptimal political context dictate your moral purpose in life. You're all turned around.

You guys need to listen to Patrick. He's about 99% right on this. He just doesn't realize it.

And you're still a liar, Billy.

[trevalyan]

Kyle, Billy, I want everyone who sympathizes with you to listen to me totally here, because I'm putting this just as carefully as I can.

I don't endorse pure state power. I don't vote in the hope that my candidate can magically do whatever the fuck he feels like because he wants to. With the powers given to the Presidency by the Constitution that supposedly rules the federal government's actions, Ron Paul can rip the guts and muscles right out of it.

Ron Paul, of all people, won't give us the political freedom to do whatever the fuck we want, including tyrannize others. He's going to let the income tax genie right out of the bottle. I mean- once an Executive Order is signed banning IRS agents from invading people's privacy to get income taxes- how long can that rotted building stay standing? How long can current conceptions stay standing? It'll be a brand new world. The President can't order people, but he CAN order federal agencies. It'll be the first, biggest step to the future.

And when only government suffers, that benefit is worth the expense of voting. We're turning government away from this idea that people can vote to rob whoever they like. And we'll only need to do it once before everything changes.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ginslinger wrote:
So, Patrick, by your argument:
National consumption tax = morally good (or neutral)
National Income Tax = morally bad
?
Either way, the state demands a portion.

There is no question that many people will demand a piece of all kinds of your action. In response, you have three options:

1. Submit to every demand without exception.
2. Resist every demand without exception.
3. Submit to some demands, and resist others.

Very quickly, I judge option 1 as despicable, and option 2 as impossible. Next!

That leaves me (and Billy) with option 3, which actually represents an entire spectrum of options. Here it is important to choose actions which have the most bang for the buck. It's all about reward versus opportunity cost. Billy knows this, and has chosen accordingly.

It's like a massive multi-variable optimization problem which cannot be "solved" perfectly and deterministically. Any approach you take will be rife with estimation and vulnerable to nit-pickers -- but on the upside, there's always room for improvement! The important part is knowing which direction is up.

[Patrick Chkoreff]

AR:
If your principles lead to your unhappiness, you need to check your premises.

That is true! Unfortunately though, you cling with white knuckles to the unfounded premise that Billy is unhappy with the consequences of acting on his principles. I just don't see it.

[GinSlinger]

If option 3 is appropriate to Billy, why not NORML, and the people that NORML represents?

Read the following in light of NORML's press release:

"Here it is important to choose actions which have the most bang for the buck. It's all about reward versus opportunity cost. Billy knows this, and has chosen accordingly.

It's like a massive multi-variable optimization problem which cannot be "solved" perfectly and deterministically. Any approach you take will be rife with estimation and vulnerable to nit-pickers -- but on the upside, there's always room for improvement! The important part is knowing which direction is up."

You're likely to point out that NORML is somehow "making a deal" with the state, but, in essence, so are you. I'll take this, while I submit to your that.

[Kyle Bennett]

It'll be a brand new world. The President can't order people, but he CAN order federal agencies. It'll be the first, biggest step to the future.

I hope you're right, I really do, but I'm all but certain you're not. Look, it's not the act of voting itself that matters. I have no illusions about the "sending a message" value of abstention. As I said, it's the premises that have to be accepted to expect anything from it. If you can pull the lever without accepting them, great. I can't.

And when only government suffers, that benefit is worth the expense of voting.

On a cost/benefit analysis, if it was a sure thing, then I'd be all over it. But then I wouldn't have to vote if it was a sure thing. But it's far, far from a sure thing. And before anyone throws out "but if everyone felt that way...", that is one of the premises that just puts a knot in my stomach.

We're turning government away from this idea that people can vote to rob whoever they like. And we'll only need to do it once before everything changes.

That I think you're right about, given the proper definition of "it". It's not turning government away from it, it's turning the people that create governments away from it. Do the former without the latter, and they'll just find another way.

[Kyle Bennett]

Read the following in light of NORML's press release:

"Here it is important to choose actions which have the most bang for the buck.

Do you have any idea what kind of "bucks" they spent in that press release?

Talk about moral relativism, you equate one "deal" with another without even considering the content of the deals. And do I even have to mention that what you call a deal in one case is absent choice, while the other was eagerly voluntary?

[Ayn_Randian]

Even the most broken communists wouldn't ask the state for permission to LIVE.

Once they point the gun at you, your highest moral purpose is to live.

Did she ever imagine the intellectual and moral holocaust that would be wrought by public education, and how it would render free speech nearly moot?

Given that public education had been well-established and widespread most of her adult life, I somehow doubt she missed the implications of it.

And the state is ruled by people who "think": therefore, government assuredly has a mind.

Hmmm...what, are these people drones now? Do they speak with one voice, like the Borg?

See composition, fallacy of.

That he comes from a place where they are is revealing.

Really? So what is the "right principle" to which everyone should adhere?

[trevalyan]

Kyle,

I feel what you're saying. You SEEM to think, from my perspective, that I'm accepting a premise by pulling the lever. I've already explained that I don't support mob rule, so there might be some other premise you think I'm internalizing, that I can't decipher.

I'm not sure what cost would be incurred by voting for Ron Paul. The man himself is a known entity with a sterling track record for integrity. Is there perhaps another cost I'm missing? As for the people- well. Their freedom from income tax itself will be a formative moment. They need to walk before they can run. But every step we take should force them closer to needing to run.

America has handled a lot. It can handle this.

[Billy Beck]

An_Kantian: "Way to go, Kant."

It has always been regrettable to me that there is no way to express explosive laughter online.

You're a clown.

[trevalyan]

Once they point the gun at you, your highest moral purpose is to live.

Which includes pointing a gun right back at them. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. But one cannot, MUST not, give in to every demand in exchange for life. That's slavery. That's OBEYING.

Hmmm...what, are these people drones now? Do they speak with one voice, like the Borg?

Zero tolerance? Lack of individuality? Speech codes? I have to say, at least the Borg were fucking efficient at forcing conformity in a ruthless manner, without the accompanying bullshit.

Considering our experience with government, its status as an amorphous mass surely can't be completely denied.

[GinSlinger]

Kyle, did you read what Patrick wrote?

"Submit to some demands, and resist others."

Submit to some demands (state business taxes), and resist others (imprisonment by the DEA).

As for "bang for the buck," are you suggesting that Patrick meant that literally?

And do I even have to mention that what you call a deal in one case is absent choice, while the other was eagerly voluntary?
Are you talking to me? Or to Patrick?

[trevalyan]

Wait, I only just caught that. You used Kant as an insult? What the FUCK.

[Billy Beck]

"f your principles lead to your unhappiness,..."

That's your assertion, and you don't know a tiny percentage of what you think you know. I have repeatedly pointed this general precept to you -- you don't know what you're talking about and that's why your position on this is complete rubbish -- and you're still as wrong as you can be. You can behave that way and nobody can do anything about it, but it also has nothing to do with reality.

[Billy Beck]

Let me try to put it to you like this, Kantian: if I took your advice, I would be a vegetative Sterno-bum within a year.

I know what I'm doing and talking about, and you don't.

[Ayn_Randian]

Trevalyn, I agree with your stance on politics in reference to your 2:45 post. In the light of the political context in which we live, I think Paul's approach is the best of all the choices we have.

It's not turning government away from it, it's turning the people that create governments away from it.

And what is the best method to do just that very thing, Kyle?

Is there perhaps another cost I'm missing?

No, trevalyn, you're trying to change the political context in which we live. Kudos. Some people think that voting somehow sanctions the state's power over them...sort of like blaming the victim.

[Billy Beck]

"Unfortunately though, you cling with white knuckles to the unfounded premise that Billy is unhappy with the consequences of acting on his principles. I just don't see it."

You don't see it because it's all in his head, Patrick.

[Kyle Bennett]

You SEEM to think, from my perspective, that I'm accepting a premise by pulling the lever.

No. I'm saying I can't separate them. I don't see how you can, but you seem to be sufficiently introspective and aware of all the contexts involved that I won't dispute it if you say you can.

The cost I speak of is accepting those premises.

[Kyle Bennett]

As for "bang for the buck," are you suggesting that Patrick meant that literally?

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone could have thought he did?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ginslinger:
If option 3 is appropriate to Billy, why not NORML, and the people that NORML represents?

Read the following in light of NORML's press release:
...
You're likely to point out that NORML is somehow "making a deal" with the state, but, in essence, so are you. I'll take this, while I submit to your that.

OK fine, I'll stipulate that NORML is making the devil's bargain "tax us instead of throwing us in prison." But do they really have to phrase it like this?

"Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

As in, it's all about the Califoooooooornians and maybe even the chiiiildren. (mmm ... syphilis cocktail)

So OK, maybe it's just cynical P.R. designed to "persuade many Californians," fair enough. But for me, I keep coming back to those metaphorical examples of John Galt and ol' Cool Hand Luke, who refused to "get their mind right" by the standards of their captors or participate in a slap-happy minstrel show to maintain the illusion of cordiality.

AR says:
Generally speaking happy people don't ... show utter and rank contempt for almost all of humanity.

Now I get along famously with lots of ordinary humans, but generally my attitude to "almost all of humanity" can best be described by a line from Harry Dean Stanton in the movie "Repo Man":

"Look at 'em. Ordinary fucking people. I hate 'em."

Nevertheless, I do meet quite a few extraordinary fucking people, meaning not your typical shambling zombie.

[Ayn_Randian]

But one cannot, MUST not, give in to every demand in exchange for life.

More Categorical Imperatives. Goodness that's sad.

That's your assertion

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"
-Ayn Rand-

Bolded for your edification.

Note she didn't say "resisting force as his noblest activity"

[Kyle Bennett]

It's not turning government away from it, it's turning the people that create governments away from it.

And what is the best method to do just that very thing, Kyle?

Raise the cost of not doing so to one higher than they can afford.

Your methods lower that cost.

[Billy Beck]

Even the most broken communists wouldn't ask the state for permission to LIVE.

"Once they point the gun at you, your highest moral purpose is to live."

Sez you. Let's go to the record in this very context:

"Yet there was a choice! The most farsighted and determined of those who were doomed did not allow themselves to be arrested. The committted suicide first (Skrypnik, Tomsky, Gamarnik). It was the ones who wanted to live who allowed themselves to be arrested. And one could certainly braid a rope from the ones who wanted to live! But even among them some behaved differently during the interrogations, realized what was happening, turned stubborn, and died silently but at least not shamefully. For some reason, they did not, after all, put on public trial Rudzutak, Postyshev, Yekunidze, Chubar, Koisio, and, for that matter, Krylenko himself, even though their names would have embellished the trials.

They put on trial the most compliant. A selection was made after all.

The men selected were drawn from a lower order, but, on the other hand, the mustached Producer knew each of them very well. He also knew that on the whole they were weaklings, and he knew, one by one, the particular weakness of each."

(Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago", Vol. I, pp. 411-412, emphases original)

Reprise:

"Once they point the gun at you, your highest moral purpose is to live."

Have you ever heard of a man named "Socrates" in your whole dink life?

Idiot. Clown. Big red rubber nose.

[Kyle Bennett]

Raise the cost of not doing so to one higher than they can afford.

Correction: Raise the immediate cost.

The long-term costs are already baked in, increasing, and accruing interest. The thing I'm asking you to do is to just consider cutting off their line of credit - moral credit at least, if not material credit. You're allowing them to believe that they can do what they're doing at no cost to their integrity.

[Ayn_Randian]

You don't see it because it's all in his head, Patrick.

Right...just like if you told me you were an astrophysicist it would be "in my head" to decide if you were lying.

You're a liar.

No. I'm saying I can't separate them.

That's unfortunate. He's not sanctioning the state's rule over him, but he is accepting that it exists. Do you see the distinction?

[Patrick Chkoreff]

Ayn Rand said:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"

Keep in mind that one of Ayn Rand's heroic characters, Francisco D'Anconia, abandoned and destroyed all of his copper mines except one: his tiny little operation in Galt's Gulch. That was the only mine in the world which he owned, and it was more valuable to him than all the vast enterprises he had created over a lifetime.

[Billy Beck]

T.: "Even the most broken communists wouldn't ask the state for permission to LIVE."

That's not true. The most notorious case in Soviet history has to be Nikolai Bukharin, who was shot in January 1938 (I think -- I'd have to go look it up), and whose letters begging Stalin to be allowed to serve him Stalin kept in his desk drawer for the rest of his life.

What's important to understand in a case like this is that his abject pleading is nothing but a measure of how badly he was broken.

[Kyle Bennett]

No. I'm saying I can't separate them.

That's unfortunate. He's not sanctioning the state's rule over him, but he is accepting that it exists. Do you see the distinction?

I have, in fact, written elsewhere very explicitly about just that distinction. But of course that is not the distinction I was referring to. Addressing that distinction - between voting and sanction - is in all likelihood beyond your ability to sensibly address, so you found a handy substitute red herring.

[Kyle Bennett]

... Stalin kept [Bukharin's letters] in his desk drawer for the rest of his life.

What's important to understand in a case like this is that his abject pleading is nothing but a measure of how badly he was broken.

And how valuable it was to Uncle Joe.

[Ayn_Randian]

Idiot. Clown. Big red rubber nose.

Liar. Is this what it looks like when a man unravels? It's instructive.

Have you ever heard of a man named "Socrates" in your whole dink life?

"The unexamined life is not worth living"...yeah, I might have. It's interesting that a man killed by the State is your version of a hero. Very instructive.

moral credit at least, if not material credit. You're allowing them to believe that they can do what they're doing at no cost to their integrity.

"Morality ends where the gun begins..."

How hard is this to comprehend?

[Kyle Bennett]

You're allowing them to believe that they can do what they're doing at no cost to their integrity.

"Morality ends where the gun begins..."

How hard is this to comprehend?

Apparently, it's nearly impossible for you to comprehend.

[Billy Beck]

trevalyan: I don't enjoy popping it on you like this, but here's a Ron Paul link that just now dropped in my box.

Look, man: there is a whole constellation of reasons why this guy can't get out of his own way.

Remember this:

"The saddest life is that of an aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success disgraceful."

(H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, December 9, 1929)

[Billy Beck]

"It's interesting that a man killed by the State is your version of a hero."

It's a lot more interesting to watch you dance your way around the essence of the matter as hard as you can. Everybody saw the Solzhenitsyn cite, son, no matter how frantically you start waving your paws in the air.

[Ayn_Randian]

Kyle:

Morality! = politics. Does not equal.

Again, you're conflating the two.

If A points a gun at B and tells B to kill C, who's responsible for C's death?

[Billy Beck]

Murder is a political act, with a necessary ethical component. Fool.

Kyle is not "equating" the two elements. He has them in proper necessary order.

[Kyle Bennett]

Morality! = politics. Does not equal.

You're right, politics is a subset of morality.

Do you really need me to validate your beliefs so badly that you think showing me your belly will convince me to do so when every other rhetorical dirty trick has failed?

[Ayn_Randian]

Murder is a political act, with a necessary ethical component. Fool.

So, which is it, Billy? Since you seemed to have missed the question, I'll re-post:

If A points a gun at B and tells B to kill C, who's responsible for C's death?

A or B? Choose Billy.

You may think I'm a fool. I know you're a liar.

[Billy Beck]

"And how valuable it was to Uncle Joe."

That's actually something of a mystery, Kyle. It was a big surprise to find Bukharin's letters in Stalin's drawer after his death, and I don't believe he is known to have ever shown them to anyone during his lifetime. Some believe that it was a fit of sentiment for a formerly close ally. Others believe that they were trophies. I wouldn't know how to call it, although it seems a damned strange trophy that someone of Stalin's total power would keep hidden away like that.

It's pretty inexplicable.

[Billy Beck]

"I know you're a liar."

Then why do you ask?

[Ayn_Randian]

Do you really need me to validate your beliefs so badly that you think showing me your belly will convince me to do so when every other rhetorical dirty trick has failed?

As I've said, it's my enlightened self-interest to teach you.

Answer the question:

If A points a gun at B, and tells B to kill C under threat of death, and B does so...who's responsible for the death of C?

[Billy Beck]

Both.

[Ayn_Randian]

Then why do you ask?

I told you that already. I have all the evidence...I just want the confession. I want you to stand up and be honest. It's a very simple request.

[Kyle Bennett]

I wouldn't know how to call it, although it seems a damned strange trophy that someone of Stalin's total power would keep hidden away like that.

My take, though I'm not very familiar with the whole context of it, is that it is part and parcel of what we are talking about here. By pleading as he did, arguing (apparently) that he would be more valuable to Stalin alive than dead ("let me serve you"), he granted Stalin the moral authority to make the decision either way.

Even a man in his (Stalin's) position has moral costs to what he does, however twisted the moral principles on which those costs are evaluated. Bukharin lowered the cost to Stalin of shooting him, and I find it revealing to this that he saw value in keeping them as reminder - continuing sanction from the grave, if you will - even though nobody else would ever know (though he might have been holding them in reserve against a possible future challenge to his "integrity" over the execution).

[Ayn_Randian]

Both.

Cease calling yourself an Objectivist. You don't understand what it means to be one.

You've just ascribed unearned guilt to B.

"Force and mind are opposites. Morality ends where a gun begins"

Don't you see it, Billy?

[Billy Beck]

"Cease calling yourself an Objectivist."

I challenged you to cite me on that and you went out like a light. You don't know what you're talking about.

"You've just ascribed unearned guilt to B."

Oh, yeah? You just cleared every concentration-camp guard in Nazi Germany.

[trevalyan]

Bill:

What's important to understand in a case like this is that his abject pleading is nothing but a measure of how badly he was broken.

Agreed, which is why I wouldn't count Bukharin as an abject communist- just a broken man. An exception can be found for Beria, though. I'm given to understand that it was at the hands of the Red Army senior staff that he had long terrorized- they dragged him out behind the Kremlin and gunned him down like a dog. And that he begged all the way down from the trial verdict. Given his supremely sadistic nature, I can only imagine what he THOUGHT his former victims were going to do to him.

Then again, the argument can be made that Beria was more a mortal fiend being sent back to Hell, than an abject communist. I can't quite quote Soviet political structure from 1933-1954, but there were enough books on the Soviets in my high school library that I devoured whole. It's bloody interesting to see what men like Zhukov thought of Stalin and his legacy, overall.

Billy:

I don't enjoy popping it on you like this, but here's a Ron Paul link that just now dropped in my box.

Stop. I saw this photograph last night, and rapidly came to my own conclusions. I understand why you're shocked and why you think Ron Paul's shot himself in the foot. Tell me: could you have identified Don Black before that picture, without knowing him? I'm withholding judgement. Maybe Ron Paul is great friends with neo-Nazis, in which case my support of him will come to an abrupt end. TOO abrupt.

But I think Ron Paul is a man of integrity and compassion. He sees some dude tricked out like a vampire, he's not going to immediately condemn him and run away, unlike that bilious fool Romney, or Hillary "(Frank) Fontaine" Clinton. What do you SEE in that picture? A man posing with two people, and signing an autograph. Ron Paul doesn't check with focus groups before he says things or talks to human beings. He actually has PRINCIPLES, and he isn't going to bend them for corporations, the media, FUCKING liberal posers, or even for me.

I admire that.

I will be happy when it turns out Ron Paul just met them, and would have never endorsed those people if he knew what they stood for. He SAYS, himself, that he is against racism. I think his career of integrity has bought him the benefit of the doubt until he responds to this. I feel it's going to be a good response. My estimation of Charles Johnson, who seems to be just slinging shit at the wall in the hopes of saying "Ron Paul's best friends are Nazis" has plummeted, though. If Paul says he doesn't know the Blacks, I'll have little problem in judging LGF as a bunch of reactionary hucksters.

That said- yes, it will intensely, absolutely crushing if Ron Paul says he's good friends with them. But then, I think Ron Paul is a man of good character with appealing political views. He is NOT my Messiah. This ideal will persist after him. And I don't shake that easy.

Thank you for your compassion on the subject, even so.

Moving right along.

[Kyle Bennett]

By pleading as he NORML did, arguing (apparently) that he the dispensaries would be more valuable to Stalin California alive than dead ("let me serve you us pay you taxes"), he granted Stalin the Feds the moral authority to make the decision either way.

Boy, marking that up that was is tiresome.

[Kyle Bennett]

...marking that up that way...

[trevalyan]

Kyle:

My take, though I'm not very familiar with the whole context of it, is that it is part and parcel of what we are talking about here. By pleading as he did, arguing (apparently) that he would be more valuable to Stalin alive than dead ("let me serve you"), he granted Stalin the moral authority to make the decision either way.

Even a man in his (Stalin's) position has moral costs to what he does, however twisted the moral principles on which those costs are evaluated. Bukharin lowered the cost to Stalin of shooting him, and I find it revealing to this that he saw value in keeping them as reminder - continuing sanction from the grave, if you will - even though nobody else would ever know (though he might have been holding them in reserve against a possible future challenge to his "integrity" over the execution).

Stalin's list of moral costs would bear little resemblance to that of a rational man. Given that Bukharin was being tortured by an extraordinarily monstrous dictator, he thought begging for mercy would cause Stalin to consider leniency, as opposed to defiance. Stalin might have some mercy on a man who was begging for his life, thusly discouraging Bukharin's execution. That is how the man thought, rightly or wrongly. I doubt Stalin read, much less followed, theories on moral cost- just his own diseased thoughts.

Fundamentally, though, the fate of Bukharin, Kirov, and the rest is why I stopped regarding being Communist as the cool thing to do a long, long time ago.

[Kyle Bennett]

I think his career of integrity has bought him the benefit of the doubt until he responds to this.

He did say on the PBS show "Now" that he disavows Black's beliefs, and disparaged them on Cavuto as a "small ideology", and "bad viewpoints".

[Ayn_Randian]

For what it's worth, I didn't just invent this example. And I didn't come up with the correct answer.

Norman Fox asked, and Ayn Rand answered (an excerpt):

Ayn Rand: In a case of that kind, you cannot morally judge the action of Man B. Since he is under the threat of death, whatever he decides to do is right, because this is not the kind of moral situation in which men could exist. This is an emergency situation. Man B, in this case, is placed in a position where he cannot continue to exist. Therefore, what he does is up to him. If he refuses to obey, and dies, that is his moral privilege. If he prefers to obey, you could not blame him for the murder. The murderer is Man A. No exact, objective morality can be prescribed for an issue where a man's life is endangered.

Now insert "the State" for A, and "you" for B and understand that it's not your fault that it has led to you doing what you previously thought was immoral (in this case, paying taxes to A, which could be termed "C".)

Oh, yeah? You just cleared every concentration-camp guard in Nazi Germany.

Go read the link.

[Ayn_Randian]

I challenged you to cite me on that and you went out like a light. You don't know what you're talking about.

Ahh, I have been laboring under a misconception. You're not an Objectivist. This has gotten interesting, hasn't it?

Where do you disagree with Objectivism, Billy?

Thanks Billy...yet again, you have taught me to be more careful in my assumptions.

[Kyle Bennett]

Stalin's list of moral costs would bear little resemblance to that of a rational man.

Which is not to say that, in his context, they didn't exist.

Stalin might have some mercy on a man who was begging for his life, thusly discouraging Bukharin's execution. That is how the man thought, rightly or wrongly.

Do you mean Stalin might actually have had, or that Bukharin likely thought he might have had? In any case, if Bukharin - instinctively or deliberately - evaluated Stalin as just a typical alpha-male, subservience could have been the natural approach. If so, it doesn't make him any less broken to have tried it.

I doubt Stalin read, much less followed, theories on moral cost...

No, but I'll bet he had a finely-honed instinct for them... again, meaning the kinds of "moral" costs to be incurred in his context.

I'm at a severe disadvantage contextually here, so I can't argue from much more than speculation.

[Ayn_Randian]

Kyle, you still have not answered my question. (ref: A, B and C).

Just answer the question and try to understand why your 5:09 post isn't as clever as you think it is.

[Kyle Bennett]

AR,

Did you ever read what Rand wrote on dropping context? You might find it enlightening.

The question assumed a highly contrived context in which B's refusal would automatically lead to his death. There was no possibility A was bluffing, nor of wrestling the weapon from A, nor of any other possibility.

Such contexts rarely if ever exist in reality, and definitely not in any scenario we are discussing. While it may or may not have been a mistake by Rand to accept such a premise in the first place, it is certainly a mistake to apply it concretely to any situation in the real world.

[Kyle Bennett]

your 5:09 post isn't as clever as you think it is.

Shit, I was supposed to be going for clever? Damn, let me go back and edit all my previous posts, then.

[Ayn_Randian]

Such contexts rarely if ever exist in reality

Holy shit...you're not an Objectivist either.

[Kyle Bennett]

The question assumed a highly contrived context...

Sorry, I just now read the actual question, and it does not assume such a context. Rand assumed it in her answer. Definitely an error on her part.

[trevalyan]

Kyle,

I meant that Bukharin thought he might have had. Sorry.

It's ok, it's just that analyzing Stalin's personality has always proved rather difficult, given his mercurial temper and irrational behavior.

[Ayn_Randian]

Such contexts rarely if ever exist in reality

Holy shit...you're not an Objectivist either.

Forget I said that, I said it in error. I missed the word "such"...you can cite it as further evidence of my monkeydom or attribute it to honest error. I rushed.

There was no possibility A was bluffing, nor of wrestling the weapon from A, nor of any other possibility.

And what evidence do you have that the State is bluffing? And are you advocating wrestling the weapon away from the State?

[Kyle Bennett]

Holy shit...you're not an Objectivist either.

Never said I was. I still know more about it than you do, and agree with far more of it than you do.

[Ayn_Randian]

[Kyle Bennett]

AR,

I accept that it's an honest error.

Aside from that, the thought occurs to me that striking out your entire post was (inadvertantly?) the most honest thing you've done in this thread.

But, reading under the lines, do you really see my examples of representative mitigations as the only possible mitigations worth considering?

[Ayn_Randian]

I still know more about it than you do, and agree with far more of it than you do.

Unproven assertion so far. Stop posturing.

[Kyle Bennett]

Unproven assertion so far. Stop posturing.

It's been proven to my satisfaction, and I stand behind it. Everyone else can judge for themselves.

[Ayn_Randian]

do you really see my examples of representative mitigations as the only possible mitigations worth considering?

No, like I've said, the only way to meaningfully exercise your rights is to convince others that they have them too. Therefore, it is my enlightened self-interest to instruct and teach, so long as I don't do it to my detriment.

I am genuinely interested in hearing your other mitigation strategies, however. And it's interesting you used "mitigation".

[Ayn_Randian]

It's been proven to my satisfaction, and I stand behind it. Everyone else can judge for themselves.

Good for you.

Let me ask, what part or problem do you see with Objectivism that you don't consider yourself one?

[Kyle Bennett]

Let me ask, what part or problem do you see with Objectivism that you don't consider yourself one?

I didn't say I wasn't one, either. Now what box you gonna put me in?

[Ron Good]

On the Ron Paul and neo-Nazi/Stormfront thing:

I know from my experience in Canadian (specifically BC, Quebec and Alberta politics) that even minimally organized fascist-right creeps try to quietly and unobtrusively infect and hijack every emerging center-right, libertarian or conservative agency/party that they can. They go to meetings, they make donations, they do what they can to become hangers-on. They end up in photos and on donor lists.

It happened in Alberta, for example with the Alberta Social Credit, Reform and Canadian Alliance parties over decades and at different times, and I have my own additional experiences as a Libertarian candidate in BC.

Then the left uses the ethical and political connections that have been faked by the fascists, every time they're brought out in the open, to bash the conservative/libertarians. In fact, the lefties up here are so familair with the tactic they keep a constant watch for the opportunities.

I have no reason to think fascist tactics are different in teh United States.

Just sayin...

[Billy Beck]

"Go read the link."

Idiot. What's it going to take to get it through our head that I am not responsible for what Ayn Rand thinks about anything, or vice-versa?

[Ayn_Randian]

Now what box you gonna put me in?

That wasn't the intent, Kyle. It was to see if we started from the same basic premises.

I say again, I am genuinely interested to hear about your other "mitigations".

[Billy Beck]

"your head"

Goddammit.

[Kyle Bennett]

It was to see if we started from the same basic premises.

We don't, and I've told you plainly what I think the differences are. Maybe some review is in order. Get back to me when you've completed it.

[Billy Beck]

"Where do you disagree with Objectivism, Billy?"

All over the place. Lots of things. If I weren't talking to a demonstrable fucking moron, I might be inclined to discuss the fact that I say Roy Childs was right, the first time.

Jesus, you asshole: what's it like to discover that you've been beating your head against thin-air all this time?

[Ayn_Randian]

Idiot. What's it going to take to get it through our head that I am not responsible for what Ayn Rand thinks about anything, or vice-versa?

*sigh* Where did I say you were? I assumed you were influenced by her, though.

Maybe you'd like to refute the point instead of name-calling.

But I sense you're not really arguing in good faith, so I doubt it.

[Billy Beck]

"Never said I was. I still know more about it than you do, and agree with far more of it than you do."

That's right, too.

[Kyle Bennett]

even minimally organized fascist-right creeps try to quietly and unobtrusively infect and hijack every emerging center-right, libertarian or conservative agency/party that they can

No doubt. But I think the point that Billy was making (and expanded upon in his blog) is that RP is too naive to avoid such pitfalls. I think there's a lot of truth to it. In some way it speaks well of him, that naivete is really better described as innocence, but it also speaks to his ability to avoid the much more serious pitfalls awaiting any possible success he may have.

[Billy Beck]

"Unproven assertion so far. Stop posturing."

He's not. It's bloody obvious in what the two of you write.

[Billy Beck]

"No, like I've said, the only way to meaningfully exercise your rights is to convince others that they have them too."

No "Objectivist" or "Randian" would ever say something like that, for reasons that I pointed out days ago, and which went right over your flat head.

[Ayn_Randian]

He's not. It's bloody obvious in what the two of you write.

Unproven assertion.

Jesus, you asshole

What warranted that?

[Billy Beck]

"I assumed you were influenced by her, though."

I am.

"Maybe you'd like to refute the point instead of name-calling."

Hey: I know what I'm looking at. I've been watching ever since it rolled in here with that outrageous nickname, posting all kinds of utter crap under it.

Fuck you.

[Ayn_Randian]

No "Objectivist" or "Randian" would ever say something like that, for reasons that I pointed out days ago, and which went right over your flat head.

Believe what you like, no matter how wrong you are.

[Ayn_Randian]

Hey: I know what I'm looking at. I've been watching ever since it rolled in here with that outrageous nickname, posting all kinds of utter crap under it.

Fuck you.

There's that miserable old monk again. god, you'd be a riot if you weren't such a sad excuse of a human.

[Billy Beck]

Look: you still say I'm a liar every time you can type the word, you don't know what you're talking about in any of this -- like I've told you over and over -- and you're going to moan about "good faith"?

I'm being sweet to you at this point when I tell you to drop dead puking.

You've got a lot of goddamned nerve, son, biut that's about it.

[Ayn_Randian]

you still say I'm a liar every time you can type the word, you don't know what you're talking about in any of this -- like I've told you over and over -- and you're going to moan about "good faith"?

Yeah, what are you going to do? Call me an idiot again?

You've got a lot of goddamned nerve, son, biut that's about it.

It doesn't take much nerve to call a spade a spade, nor to call a tragic excuse for a human being what he is.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'm being sweet to you at this point when I tell you to drop dead puking.

You really are a gas, Billy. Now you're just entertaining me.

[Gee]

Billy,

"I would only point out to you that voting is far more serious a moral question than the play that's getting in your statement of your position."

True. I do, however, think the question gets murkier when the prospective destination of a vote (Paul in this case) would likely share our perspective on that question. Yes, I'm participating in a SYSTEM whereby rights are subject to a vote and that alone, regardless of my vote (for Paul, one who would presumably leave my rights the fuck alone), could be perceived as sanction, the fact that my VOTE is for a rejector of that very system should counter, at least, any perceived sanction.

"You could have all of what you describe without actually voting."

I don't think so, in the sense that if, say, zero Iowans voted for Paul on Jan 3, his campaign is over, and the message behind it gets marginalized (even further). The more votes he receives along the way, the longer and more visible the ride.

Oh, and I could give a fuck that some cretin manages to be among the hundreds of thousands who successfully place themselves in front of a camera with Paul.

[Ron Good]

I think Ron Paul would be a great guy to have as a neighbour and I don't disrespect him. If I allow myself to be cynical and pragmatic I can even see a Ron Paul political victory as an entertaining spanner thrown into the works of the hard-core statists.

But I don't push people around any more (I once ran as a Libertarian candidate), even if it's just with a vote, even towards things I might like. I'm not a democrat, and no one is gonna point to me and say I "gave them a mandate" to coerce anything.

[Billy Beck]

Gee: pay attention to Ron's final sentence.

It's not about what you say it is. It's about what they do with it.

[Ayn_Randian]

It's not about what you say it is. It's about what they do with it.

Yah, man...don't you ,like, get it? your words have the power to like, validate what other people do...you're that powerful, man...it's amazing.

Pass the acid.

[Billy Beck]

Pissed off because you're all done now?

I'll let you know when you have entered competence for the very first time in this entire episode.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'll let you know when you have entered competence for the very first time in this entire episode.

Like, cool...really? like, you mean it, man...oh, hey that's just great man. I didn't know that you were, like, the gatekeeper of competence n' stuff. you really do have the power...all hail.

[Billy Beck]

"Oh, and I could give a fuck that some cretin manages to be among the hundreds of thousands who successfully place themselves in front of a camera with Paul."

Here's a question, Gee: do you let just anyone walk up and shake your hand before you are actually introduced to them? Have you ever noticed how most people will stand there and stick a fin out for someone to shake and they have no idea who they're about to do that with?

Do you do that?

I don't.

[Billy Beck]

"...the gatekeeper of competence n' stuff..."

{shrug} Your words. Not mine. I know why you have to do that.

It's not what you're trying to foist, son. It's about informed observation.

[Ayn_Randian]

It's about informed observation.

Yeah man, you're, like, RIGHT! Like, I was really tripping balls one time and I was losing my mind, and then I looked up in the heavens, and there, like, you were...only you were, like, an angel or god or something...dude, and you totally had wings out of your back and were fronting for Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Do you do that?

I don't.

i like, knew it man! you are god. you know who's good and evil before, you even like, touch them, man.

what is the source of your power. DUDE YOU GOTTA TELL ME!

[Kyle Bennett]

'll let you know when you have entered competence for the very first time in this entire episode.

To be fair, a few times he's almost worked up the courage to knock on the door - gotten up on the stoop, slicked back his hair, got his knuckles all a'ready... and then took a look over his shoulder for encouragement and noticed his friends were still back on the street corner with their hands in their pockets and heads down, scuffing their toes into the ground.

[Billy Beck]

That's right, Kyle. "Dogs," just like I said.

And he's actually got the cheek to call me a liar.

[Kyle Bennett]

And so now he's back with his creeew at a safe distance throwing rocks...

[Ayn_Randian]

lemme, like, figure out Kyle...you have the power too!

WHAT IS IT? YOU GOTTA TELL ME! you guys are like, so supercool and stuff...you can, like, read minds and stuff...like, give me the key to your DOOR OF KNOWLEDGE!

like, please, let me join your club pretty please? lemme guess - no girls allowed?

[Ayn_Randian]

And he's actually got the cheek to call me a liar.

Yeah, you still are too.

What are you going to do, post about me on your ALMIGHTY BLOG OF POWER?

[Billy Beck]

You know what, kid? Smart people, when they realize how wrong they've been, don't revert to grade-school. They get quiet and pay attention.

[Ayn_Randian]

And so now he's back with his creeew at a safe distance throwing rocks...

i was like, so overwhelmed by your all-powerful mind, man...seriously, like, Ken Jennings has like, nothing on you, man.

COME ON WHAT IS IT? is it, like, the AllSource man, or what?

[Billy Beck]

"What are you going to do, post about me on your ALMIGHTY BLOG OF POWER?"

BTW: this tells me that Jennifer is not deleting comments without reading them. You idiots don't know this, but I see everything about you.

Let her know for me: she's got a very special place in my heart, now.

[Kyle Bennett]

i was like, so overwhelmed by your all-powerful mind,

COME ON WHAT IS IT?

Someday, when crying yourself to sleep doesn't work anymore, ask that question again in all seriousness, without the hyperbole, and see if you can come up with an answer for yourself.

[Ayn_Randian]

You know what, kid? Smart people, when they realize how wrong they've been, don't revert to grade-school. They get quiet and pay attention.

well, you've been calling me an "idiot", amongst a plethora of other nastiness, the entire time. So, like, fire away with your POWER man!

don't revert to grade-school.

yeah, you're right man...i've been so immature...I should have like, followed your example and been like "hey chica you're going to beg to fellate me...just you wait n' see...and then I'm going to talk about you on my ALMIGHTY BLOG OF POWER"

that's what maturity looks like, man. thanks for lighting a candle in my like, personal prison of darkness...you're like jesus only without a father.

[Ayn_Randian]

this tells me that Jennifer is not deleting comments without reading them. You idiots don't know this, but I see everything about you.

like, yeah, I knew you were god.

she's got a very special place in my heart, now.

like, oh good n' stuff.

[Ayn_Randian]

Seriously, though...enough entertainment for today.

Thanks for being such a good sport about it, Billy...you know we love you!

[Billy Beck]

Not for her.

[Richard Nikoley]

Boiled six dungeness crabs alive this afternoon, now cleaned and on ice. My remoulade is settling in the fridge. Tri-Tip on the grill soon, all to be accompanied by iceberg lettuce wedge, blue cheese crumbles, and creamy dressing.

We'll have to uncork a read and a white, soon. In the meantime, the 15-yr-old Glenlivet is neat & smooth.

Mom, dad, two brothers and their family's along for the ride.

I'm watching you.

[Billy Beck]

Relax, Rich. This has been going on for a week, and I see no sign of the end yet.

There's always room for Jell-O.

[Jake Boone]

Cyberstalking now?
How much lower can you sink,
Philosopher-King?

[Richard Nikoley]

"There's always room for Jell-O."

Hah! Maybe topped with some cr?me fra?che! (Yea, I have it on hand. The remoulade called for a bit.)

[Richard Nikoley]

Happy holidays to ya, Jake.

[Gee]

"I'm not a democrat, and no one is gonna point to me and say I "gave them a mandate" to coerce anything."

That's why I don't vote (prior to Paul).

Paul's the anti-coercion candidate. I don't think many can confuse a vote for Paul with a mandate to coerce. To the extent that anyone does, I'll live with it, and know that there will be many more who point to me and say I "chose to remove the mandate" to coerce anything.

Then I'll return to not voting.

"It's not about what you say it is. It's about what they do with it."

At this stage they're gonna do with it what they're gonna do with it. I'm less concerned with that than with achieving what OTHERS might think about it.

To wit: If Paul wins say 15% in a primary or in the general, as opposed to 1%, it may move some observers to "check out what this libertarian stuff is all about".

[Gee]

"Here's a question, Gee: do you let just anyone walk up and shake your hand before you are actually introduced to them? Have you ever noticed how most people will stand there and stick a fin out for someone to shake and they have no idea who they're about to do that with?"

He had an idea. It was with someone who efforted to meet him at an event and presumably supports his campaign. When there's a hundred others waiting for their turn, it's not at all unreasonable to keep the line moving.

What are you getting at?

[Ron Good]

Gee: I don't question your motives. Good luck with that, then.

But it's not a line I'll cross.

[Jake Boone]

Happy holidays to ya, Jake.

To you too, Richard.

(not sarcasm)

[Ayn_Randian]

Richard Nikoley | December 22, 2007, 8:28pm | #
Boiled six dungeness crabs alive this afternoon, now cleaned and on ice. My remoulade is settling in the fridge. Tri-Tip on the grill soon, all to be accompanied by iceberg lettuce wedge, blue cheese crumbles, and creamy dressing.

We'll have to uncork a read and a white, soon. In the meantime, the 15-yr-old Glenlivet is neat & smooth.

Mom, dad, two brothers and their family's along for the ride.

I'm watching you.

Billy Beck | December 22, 2007, 8:35pm | #
Relax, Rich. This has been going on for a week, and I see no sign of the end yet.

There's always room for Jell-O.

Hah! Maybe topped with some cr?me fra?che! (Yea, I have it on hand. The remoulade called for a bit.)

Wow, the weirdos even speak in code.

Did someone open the doors to the asylum last week and I missed it? Are the "dungeness crabs" like, people who looked at you funny and you boiled them alive? Who are the red and white you're going to "uncork"? I mean...Jennifer has red hair....oh my...

What's Jell-O code for..., like, blood shakes or something?

cr?me fra?che - I don't even want to know what that stands for.

As I get more and more sleep-deprived, I become more convinced that you guys are a real live creepy, creepy cult.

BB: DON'T YOU GET IT??
Someone else: WHAT'S IT??
BB: IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FUCKING FACE, IDIOT!

Like, what is it? Is "It" Solyent Green? IT'S PEOPLE...I DO GET IT!

The mind boggles.

[Kyle Bennett]

Wow, the weirdos even speak in code.

There's paranoia and obsessiveness for you. Sometimes a dungeness crab is just a dungeness crab.

Here's the code, AR: This is all about living life, and he's getting on with it.

[Billy Beck]

Gee: "At this stage they're gonna do with it what they're gonna do with it...

Well, I see no way around that, for sure. The thing is, though...

"I'm less concerned with that than with achieving what OTHERS might think about it."

...the vote itself isn't necessary to any of that. I mean, you can trumpet Paul's ideas that make sense as best you can -- which is what you're talking about, really; ideas -- and be doing a lot more for them than voting for anything.

"To wit: If Paul wins say 15% in a primary or in the general, as opposed to 1%, it may move some observers to 'check out what this libertarian stuff is all about'."

That's already happening, and nobody's cast a single vote for anything yet. See what I mean?

(your other comment...)

"He had an idea. It was with someone who efforted to meet him at an event and presumably supports his campaign. When there's a hundred others waiting for their turn, it's not at all unreasonable to keep the line moving.

What are you getting at?"

{shrug} I'm getting at the real nature of the thing, I guess. I wouldn't want to get mugged like that. And I'm not new to how these stuff works at the grit level. Here's what would have impressed me, though; if Paul had known what he was doing, looked that -- person -- in the eye and let him know unmistakably that he was not welcome and that he'd best disappear, instanter. Right in front of everybody.

That would have impressed me with Ron Paul as a man.

[Billy Beck]

Kyle: "My take, though I'm not very familiar with the whole context of it, is that it is part and parcel of what we are talking about here. By pleading as he did, arguing (apparently) that he would be more valuable to Stalin alive than dead ('let me serve you'), he granted Stalin the moral authority to make the decision either way."

All that is undeniably true, and it most certainly part & parcel here. The thing is, Bukharin had crossed that bridge a long, long time before. He was long a major Party wheel and the premier Soviet economist under Lenin, by far. He was ass-deep, and by the time he got his "nine grams", all questions of authority, granted or presumed, were quite moot.

"Even a man in his (Stalin's) position has moral costs to what he does,..."

Yup. I find detailed accounts of his death morbidly fascinating. He went out like a monster, in the company of monsters.

"...however twisted the moral principles on which those costs are evaluated. Bukharin lowered the cost to Stalin of shooting him, and I find it revealing to this that he saw value in keeping them as reminder - continuing sanction from the grave, if you will - even though nobody else would ever know (though he might have been holding them in reserve against a possible future challenge to his 'integrity' over the execution)."

Who knows? The Kremlin was a shark tank, even for the biggest sharks. You parenthetical is worthy. "Rehabilitations" of murdered people is a remarkable feature of Soviet history, and they very often had serious political implications for the living. I suppose that could have been part of the angle.

[Ernest Brown]

Kyle,

"There's paranoia and obsessiveness for you. Sometimes a dungeness crab is just a dungeness crab."

Watch out, An Kantian will have ways of finding out who stole his strawberries, as soon as he gets his (ball) bearings.

[Billy Beck]

That's just evil, Brown. You oughta be ashamed of yourself.

[Richard Nikoley]

Happy holidays to you too, AR.

[Kyle Bennett]

I had to google the reference, but, yeah...

[Ernest Brown]

Beck

"That's just evil, Brown. You oughta be ashamed of yourself."

Not really. The only "Svengali-like" influence that you have on these wretched punks is that you bring to the surface their own mauvaise foi, as the old Frenchman used to say.

An Kantian is actually the worst of them, as his herd instincts are conflicted with his occasional desire to invoke philosophical pretense, it is a subject for which he lacks both aptitude and personal integrity. Ginfizzle is just a straight-up Sophist wannabe, a failed attempt at being a Toohey. What could be more pathetic than that?

[Gee]

"That's already happening, and nobody's cast a single vote for anything yet. See what I mean?"

Sure, but as I stated in a prior post, if his vote totals starting in two weeks are woeful, he likely won't continue. Even if he did continue in the face of woeful vote tallies, it would be with even less media coverage and with softening grassroots support. I'd like to maximize this rare (once-in-a-lifetime?)opportunity. I'd like it to continue, with increasing momentum, all the way to November (and beyond, in my dreams), if at all possible. Therefore, I'll also contribute a vote to the pot. He'll need a large number of them if this thing is to endure past February.

But I absolutely respect anyone's decision to refrain from voting, even for Paul.

"And I'm not new to how these stuff works at the grit level. Here's what would have impressed me, though; if Paul had known what he was doing, looked that -- person -- in the eye and let him know unmistakably that he was not welcome and that he'd best disappear, instanter. Right in front of everybody."

Sure, that would've been impressive, but I don't know how Paul could have known who that person was. I really don't.

"That would have impressed me with Ron Paul as a man."

I'm sufficiently impressed with his numerous statements denouncing racism. I'm REALLY impressed with his not taking the politically correct route and returning the creep's $500 to placate the vapid MSM. I LOVED that.

[Ron Good]

Ayn Randian: you ain't jellin'

[Ayn_Randian]

An Kantian is actually the worst of them.

wow, such pathetic bullshit. circle the wagons, ernest. -10

You oughta be ashamed of yourself.

waaa-waaa...that sounds the tears of some pathetic elederly man...maybe he hasn't taken his metamucil. maybe he missed the early-bird special.

I know that I would be upset if I were a liar and lived that way; no wonder you're so angry, Billy.

There's paranoia and obsessiveness for you.

I know! isn't it amazing how goddadmned wonderful you are, kyle? You piss excellence.

[Ayn_Randian]

Let's summarize:

If you want to see where faith and a lack of reason leads you to, witness the sad life of Billy Beck, an enraged hardon with nothing but contempt for the majority of humans. Broke, alone, contemplating theater acts of suicide to prove some kind of mysterious "point", foisting unearned guilt on everybody and severely lacking in knowledge concerning benevolence, justice, guilt, force v. reason. Feeling perpetually guilty for every cigarette he smokes and someone who has, through a mix of faith and strange esoteric "knowledge", has somehow rationalized licensing his car but not licensing his airplane. He believes that if someone merely thinks of harming another his destruction is not only warranted but justified, in some kind of cosmic sense.

Witnesseth his misery, contempt and anger, and take heed at what faith can do to a person. His only joy is in cyberstalking, spending long hours on the internet basking in his own delusions of grandeur and self-assured that he, and he alone is right in this world.

I also have it on excellent authority that he knows nothing about guitars.

I would thank him, for his example was exceptionally illustrative and instructive as to quite a few things, chief among them is what happens to a mind when it attempts to harbor a contradiction. Like I said, though, I would thank him, but he didn't do anything but give me an example to validate what I've known the entire time. What's ironic about the whole thing is that he could turn around and say the exact thing about me, except that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and Billy is wrong. A wrong premise validated is still wrong. I know I am right, and although I never needed him, his educational and entertainment value to me has reached an end.

A liar and a charlatan; a pathetic loser who lives only by begging charity from his family...he's "thought about things we never have", or some such nonsense, but he never actually considered the implications of what it means to live.

I sense, at the root of all of it, is fear...Billy fears failure more than anything else, and instead of facing up to it and actually trying something, he's concocted an extremely dense and unintelligible philosophy to justify his fear of failure, and his posturing, rudeness and name-calling is a defense mechanism because he's afraid someone's going to call him out on his bullshit. He's kind of like the loser at the club, watching everybody else have fun. Instead of figuring out a way to go have fun with the rest of them, he stands on the wall, preening and talking about what losers they are. In reality, he secretly yearns to have fun, too. But his faith won't let him...he's the special snowflake in the room, and dammit, everybody has to come to him. Is there anything more pathetic than he, who has come to a room full of people and declared none of them matter to him? Strange, indeed then, that he even bothers. Billy, one does have to wonder why, if you hate damn near everybody and people don't matter, you so obviously and desperately seek others' attention and approval.

Amazingly, none of these guys has figured out that if you act absurd, then that is what you're going to get in return.

Patrick - feel free to contact me; I think you're one of most reasonable people I've met.

Ernest, you said of GinSlinger "What could be more pathetic than that?" Take a look in the mirror, you pretentious fuck.

Kyle - "There's paranoia and obsessiveness for you." - I guess there is ONE more thing more pathetic than Ernest...it would be person who takes a joke post and thinks he can divine someone's thoughts from it. You're like Miss Cleo, except she was funny.

I take none of you seriously (Patrick, you are an exception); to me, you are now entertainment. Now, dance, monkey, dance! I desire to be amused.

[trevalyan]

If there's one thing I hate worse in the world than lawyers and tyrants, it's goddamn psychoanalyzers. These fucks tell what you think, DESPITE evidence to the contrary out of your own mouth, and expect you to take them seriously.

I'm patient with people who call me a liar. It's often just a matter of reasoning out how we've come to different conclusions or perceptions of a fact. But when a man tells me what I THINK, I'm always just one jerk of an arm away from popping his teeth all over the curb.

I don't expect you to understand this, whoever the fuck you think you are. Suffice it to say that the most cursory examination of Billy Beck's life reveals a sincere and deep love for music, especially guitars. In private conversation, he's a thoughtful and considerate man who can address just about any issue I toss at him. And he doesn't BEG from his family, you corpse-fucking cockbite: I got the how and the why of the house that isn't in his name, and I thought it was just miserable that the state can force a man into these charades. If you don't, then that's your fucking problem.

And ten dollars says that your vaunted "authority" on guitars is broken at best. It's damn sad that you'll just throw a moronic smear at the wall, especially as it basically implies that Les Paul guitars don't just rock the fuck out, which even the tiniest widdle guitar lover can tell is a huge load of bollocks.

Frame the bloody hell off.

[Kyle Bennett]

Patrick, I think you're one of most reasonable people I've met.

I agree with you on that, but I've noticed an interesting pattern. You're appraisal of reasonableness seems inversely correlated to the level of abstraction the person has engaged you at. Patrick has engaged you at a more concrete level then the rest of us, and Billy the least. And it's Billy you reserve your harshest vitriol for. I suspect your evaluation of "reasonableness" is more about your ability to deal with abstraction.

The thing is, that all of "Billy's minions" here are capable at any level, but only those that choose the most concrete level when dealing with you get through to you.

Otherwise, shorter Ayn_RandianJim_Taggart: "We don't have to believe it, do we? Do We?!?!"

[Billy Beck]

"I have it on excellent authority..."

Fifty cents in one of those machines at the local Wal-Mart, right?

[Billy Beck]

T: "It's damn sad that you'll just throw a moronic smear at the wall, especially as it basically implies that Les Paul guitars don't just rock the fuck out,..."

It's all astounding to me. First, this thread went to my cat (it was Ernest who did that, playing on the absurdity of all this, in advance), and now this.

Since it's here, I will say this: the Axebites column has been LP-heavy lately, and I've been conscious of that. Part of it is the market: they simply happen to be the most interesting items I've seen lately. Also, however, it's true that I haven't been watching the jazz boxes very closely (ES-137, Howard Roberts Fusion, ES-5, etc.) They've never interested me a great deal, but I do sometimes think I should pay more attention to them.

{sigh} Everyone's a damned critic.

[Ernest Brown]

An Kantian,

"Ernest, you said of GinSlinger "What could be more pathetic than that?" Take a look in the mirror, you pretentious fuck."

Translation:

"I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Thanks for confirming that I hit the nail right on the head, sourcheeks. The fact that you trail right along after Ginfizzle and his obvious attempts at crowd-pleasing disingenuousness in place of reasoned argument, coupled with your less than feeble understanding of the value of living your -own- life, mark you out as the wearer of the
pathetic crown in this little dialog.

Your attempts at psychoanalysis are just as sad and idiotic. If I had any holiday wishes for you, it is that you would lean to think and exist for yourself instead of hiding behind the skirts of others, but I'm afraid that's one present that Santa's not going to be bringing your way, ever.

Enjoy your coal.

[Mike S.]

An Kantian:
...I also have it on excellent authority that he knows nothing about guitars....

Tell me something, how is it possible that you expect to be able to lie through your fucking teeth like that in broad daylight without anyone noticing?

(I wonder, if a photo of this undoubtedly repellent asshole should ever surface, it would give Zepp's a run for the current trophy.)

[Ayn_Randian]

Frame the bloody hell off

Ha, ha! Dance, monkey, dance! You ARE very, very entertaining.

Fifty cents in one of those machines at the local Wal-Mart, right?

Zing...good one Billy! Now, let's see if I can wind these toys up any further...

But when a man tells me what I THINK, I'm always just one jerk of an arm away from popping his teeth all over the curb.

That's it, trevalyn! Demonstrate that room temperature IQ. I bet your momma is so proud of you...maybe she'll give an extra pat on your head before she tucks you in to bed.

mark you out as the wearer of the
pathetic crown in this little dialog.

What was that about rubber and glue, Ernest? We can do this dance all day long.

The thing is, that all of "Billy's minions" here are capable at any level, but only those that choose the most concrete level when dealing with you get through to you.

Cute...so philosophy is better than science now? That's funny. I'll remember that when a Christian doctor goes to operate on you.

Dance harder you fucking animals!

[Mike S.]

You ARE very, very entertaining.

Yes, the entertaiment found here really is so much better than having sex when no one will have sex with you.

Right?

Tell me, how long has it been since you had sex without paying for it?

Enquiring minds want to know....

[Ayn_Randian]

Tell me something, how is it possible that you expect to be able to lie through your fucking teeth like that in broad daylight without anyone noticing?

Mike, you're the best toy of all. You know what Santa got me for Christmas? You guys! You're the most entertainment I've had in years!

seriously, though, Billy never explains himself about his opinions. Why should I?

[trevalyan]

Billy:

YOUR cat? 🙂

I know what you meant, and I can pull together the situation from what you've written about it, but I'm gonna be having a good old laugh at the phrase for the rest of the week. Adopting stray little kittens.

I'm sure you'll invite me to promptly go to Hell, and I can only respond that I'm already there. You too.

Damn.

[Ayn_Randian]

Tell me, how long has it been since you had sex without paying for it?

Ask your girlfriend; she was there.

So was your mom.

Aren't you glad that you've driven the level of discourse down so much? It really is more fun this way; dealing with you on the level you've chosen.

DANCE MONKEY! I might just pay you for this much fun!

[Billy Beck]

"YOUR cat? :)"

{hah!} That's not true at all, is it?

[Kyle Bennett]

Hmmm, how to save Billy's rep?

Oh, I know...

Trevalyan, to be fair, he only bonded with it after watching it kill something. Only then would he let it in the house.

[trevalyan]

First, this thread went to my cat

... I pretty much had to jump on that like a cat on a mouse. It could be much worse. Rich Nikoley could have called it before I did.

That's one point for me.

[Kyle Bennett]

I believe I was the first to bring up the cat. Where's my points?

[Billy Beck]

That's true, Kyle. She's a bloodthirsty killer.

[Ayn_Randian]

Tell me, how long has it been since you had sex without paying for it?

Ask your girlfriend; she was there.

So was your mom.

Oh my fault, I did pay for that.

FWIW, sex isn't "entertainment" for me; it's a little bit more important than that.

[Ernest Brown]

"I believe I was the first to bring up the cat. Where's my points?"

(pirate voice)
Twas I bespoke the moggie first, Arrgh!

[trevalyan]

Trevalyan, to be fair, he only bonded with it after watching it kill something. Only then would he let it in the house.

A cynical man, quite unlike me, would remark that the narrative of the cat's homecoming was set in December. In New York.

Your alignment has shifted 5 points towards Altruistic Good, Mr. Beck. Dreadfully sorry.

Kyle:

Ah, the point wasn't for the cat per se. But for the admission of "ownership," as much as any man be said to OWN a cat. Which I think you'll agree is much more fun to catch.

[Billy Beck]

Psst. -- can I tell you guys something?

NORML is full of idiots.

[GinSlinger]

NORML is full of idiots.

Cite please?

[Kyle Bennett]

NORML is full of idiots.

Heh, I've got a great story of the intesection of the local (IIRC) chapter head of NORML with the local Libertarians. It involves a petition going backward around the table and everybody scratching their names off because only one person (guess who) bothered to ask her any questions at all, and later, menstrual blood and chanting during a debate.

[Ernest Brown]

Billy,

"NORML is full of idiots."

Now, if you had just said this at first instead of making reference to "syphilis cocktails," this thread would never have happened.

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[trevalyan]

NORML is full of idiots.

Good Lord, way to put the thread back on track.

That said, I hardly disagree. The justification for leaving cocaine banned, but arguing FOR maryjane, is an argument they're destined to lose. Chris Rock, for his occassional flaws, points out the obvious with the cigarette hypocrisy.

Change the terms back to moral ones. Government has ZERO right to tell you what to inhale. Full stop. That's a fight you might win.

[Billy Beck]

At the very least, T., it has the virtue of dealing in principles. Whether that's a winnable fight is arguable. At least, though, nobody would have an excuse for not knowing what it's about.

[trevalyan]

Hence the might, Mr. Beck. Hence the might.

Of course, when the party ostensibly FOR freedom suddenly goes fetal at the thought of scary brown people/ strange smelling cigarettes, and the other party encourages every freedom except the freedom to keep your own money... it's harder.

I read what you and your dad thought of Reagan. It helps me understand what you're thinking of me now. But it's not about a "hero," so much as it is so many minds awakening to REAL freedom, which Reagan never had any real interest in. Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican, indeed.

[Gee]

"But it's not about a "hero,""

You're right, of course, but is there another label for a performance, nose-to-nose with the bloated Russert, containing BOTH a condemnation of the Income Tax AND the Drug War, other than 'heroic'? 😉

[trevalyan]

Drool.

"Over a trillion dollars."

"... that's GOOD."

I don't know who said Ron Paul couldn't turn a phrase, but I would like to buy some pot from them.

Anyways. He's a good man of noble character. A little too trusting, but he may as well have thrown holy water in Tim Russert's face and watch the bastard melt to a puddle. Russert's got on defense against an honest man with a strong presence of mind, and my only regret was that the fucker didn't haul up the Stormfront picture during the interrogation, so Paul could give that a national shredding as well.

[Kyle Bennett]

You're right, of course, but is there another label for a performance, nose-to-nose with the bloated Russert, containing BOTH a condemnation of the Income Tax AND the Drug War, other than 'heroic'? 😉

"The size of government wasn't that bad ten years ago."

I'm just sayin'...

[trevalyan]

Compared to now, the size of government ten years ago was lovely. But I think everyone's quite aware a man of principle wouldn't be satisfied with that.

[Kyle Bennett]

Haha, Russert quoted Dondero.

He's supporting public schools and social security in principle, and debating the petty details of how to save it.

His excuse on earmarks is lame.

As much as I was hoping he'd have some kind of effect, now... *fizzle*

[trevalyan]

I don't know how Paul's going to get around the Social Security concept. People have been paying into it for years, and the best thing to do would be to refund their money as they got older.

Paul's trying to talk about how the system won't crash overnight, Kyle. He knows that suddenly pulling the plug on all schooling in America won't fly at all- it can only be done gradually, but always with that aim in mind. He's not entirely foolish on the political front. He talks about the need for educational freedom, so I'm likely to believe his expressed policy over what has to be condensed into a 1 minute argument.

[Kyle Bennett]

I don't know how Paul's going to get around the Social Security concept. People have been paying into it for years, and the best thing to do would be to refund their money as they got older.

You just answered your own question. Has he advocated that? Because in this, he advocated only letting the young people out, and then went on to talk about how the money we save from military cutbacks would make the system financially sound.

He knows that suddenly pulling the plug on all schooling in America won't fly at all- it can only be done gradually, but always with that aim in mind.

He said specifically he was not against it. And it's not all schooling, there's a lot of capacity that can now or quickly be brought up to speed to take up a lot of the slack.

He's not entirely foolish on the political front.

No, he knows it requires compromise, in principle. In order to win, he has to accept the same premises you have to accept to pull the lever for him.

Look, sure, he'd probably be the best President we've had in a long time, if ever. And 8 years of Paul would be fine by me, such as it is. But he'd still be a President, and a President will never have the power to fix this.

I'm likely to believe his expressed policy over what has to be condensed into a 1 minute argument.

It was more like a 28 minute argument.

[Ayn_Randian]

Is happiness a prison?

[Elliot]

Kyle, I know what you mean about that Russert clip. It's nice to watch Ron Paul face up to the shortfalls vs. spending horseshit you see every other politician get upside down and backwards (on purpose). But his principles, by necessity of being elected, run shallow. He can only go so far before running aground.

[trevalyan]

Kyle, I don't think Americans will appreciate any slack in their schooling.

Correction. They'll tolerate a LOT of slack in the schools. But when governments spend less money, and they can directly tie that to a lack of schooling? Oh yes, they'll freak.

I'm getting the drift. Ron Paul can't fix the entitlement culture overnight. Perhaps he can't fix it ever. Can't really deny that. He has the power to fix some things- the worst things starting off, and certainly take a large chunk out of the problem. I don't like compromising, and I don't like shortcuts to moral argument. I persuade people about this thing we want, because a solid core of men who refuse to tyrannize others is the ONLY way to bring it about.

And just to be clear, it's a 28 minute segment of Paul largely responding to a lot of "gotcha" questions. He has to divide his time, and he can't explain the hows and whys of his positions in a very short time period- at least, not thoroughly enough to convince people who don't know the story.

[Elliot]

To whomever goes by the ridiculous name "Ayn_Randian": days ago I could have wondered if you might, after letting the dust settle, take a deep breath and ratchet things back a bit. I've seen many people, to include me, who let their emotions get the better of them in an argument and assume that the guy arguing against what is apparently (to them) plain as the nose on one's face must be a liar, scoundrel, loser, etc.. The decent ones realize this and apologize, or at the very least just shut up.

I quit reading all of the comments here because of time constraints and I couldn't keep up with the particular arguments. But to see you attacking Beck over his knowledge of guitars, in open defiance of facts easily found with the click of a mouse, to name just one example, followed by your insane "DANCE MONKEY" taunts, convinced me that you are an unrepentant liar who is only interested in smearing people who make you mad. At this point, I doubt that anything anyone can say will dissuade you from your senseless acts of online vandalism. Nevertheless, at least now you know that one more person knows just how utterly lame you are.

[Gee]

Kyle, nobody's claiming Paul's a 10. He may only be a 5, but in a field of -40s, well, I think you can excuse our giddiness.

The guy's been on national TV quoting/referencing the likes of Hayek, Rand and Bastiat, fercrissakes. I think you can cut him some slack.

[Ayn_Randian]

Nevertheless, at least now you know that one more person knows just how utterly lame you are.

Rubber and glue, Eliot. Nobody asked you anyway.

But thanks for dancing on my stage.

[Kyle Bennett]

Fine, you guys. I'm not going to argue Ron Paul all day. I think he blew it on Russert, either to the extent of merely a bad performance, or to the extent of a real abdication of principle. I don't care that much which, the effect will mostly be the same.

I do suggest you watch the Russert interview (it's all on YouTube), and judge for yourselves.

[Billy Beck]

"Kyle, nobody's claiming Paul's a 10. He may only be a 5, but in a field of -40s, well, I think you can excuse our giddiness.

The guy's been on national TV quoting/referencing the likes of Hayek, Rand and Bastiat, fercrissakes."

That's a value. No way around it. I've never seen that before in my life.

(I'm not ignoring you guys. I'm re-assembling a guitar for a Christmas present. It could be the rest of the evening.)

[Ron Good]

ayn_Randian wrote, referring to Billy: I also have it on excellent authority that he knows nothing about guitars.

Then your excellent authority is wrong. Billy may not be George Gruhn, but when it comes to Gibson solid body and and archtop electrics, Billy has a great deal of knowledge.

And why would I know? Because I made half my living over 40 years playing music (such as it is/was) and bought, sold and appraised new, used and vintage guitars in fairly large retail operations for years. Although I'm not in a large store now, I still play, buy and sell guitars today.

Now, taste can mean that two people have differing opinions on how good a guitar is (to play especially) with neither of them being wrong but I know guitars relly quite well, and Billy knows more than I do about Gibsons especially.

The rest of AR's appriasal from the post I just quoted is no more accurate--and I know that personally/factually as well.

[Ron Good]

Tell me something, how is it possible that you expect to be able to lie through your fucking teeth like that in broad daylight without anyone noticing?

...Billy never explains himself about his opinions. Why should I?

Well, actually it wasn't AR's opinion. It was just a flat out attempt at a smear using a reference to an opinion allegedly expressed by an unamed someone that AR has advised we should take as an "excellent authority".

I'm assuming AR has no way of knowing for himself.

But I do--and AR's wrong (again).

[Billy Beck]

"But thanks for dancing on my stage."

"Once is philosophy. Twice; perversion."

[Ron Good]

Sorry for the bad markup on my last post. I know y'all can figure it out.

I remember Reagan quoting von Mises and referencing Hayek, Hazlitt and Bastiat--but I don't know if it was on TV. Certainly his radio stuff did.

And that was a value, too.

[trevalyan]

I'll talk when I have something to say. Point me if there's anything else you guys find interesting.

[Kyle Bennett]

Ron mentioned Reagan:

A Time For Choosing - Reagan '64

If RP had this kind of speaking talent, the rest of them would be chasing him.

I'm sorry for being too short with you earlier, Gee and tevalyan. I just saw that whole RP thing going on for another thousand posts, and don't have the heart for it.

I understand the attraction to Paul, I get sucked into it every so often myself. But I can see where it is heading and why, and I won't waste anymore time on a "Great White Hope". It might have had a chance back in '64 if few things had been different, but now hope lies in a different direction.

[Cin]

Kyle,
What different direction does your hope lie in? I'm interested to hear.

[trevalyan]

It's ok, Kyle, I get it. I could go round and round about Ron Paul all day, but the man's at 3% nationally, and if I wanted to seriously change that I'd be doing it outside a nominally libertarian blog.

Yes, I very much enjoy the concept of changing things peacefully, because I also like to DO things. Which means if co-operative solutions to weaken government fail, I'll run with more disruptive measures.

After all, someone has to. I don't bloody feel like waiting until the state's ready to tap me on the shoulder to declare me a thoughtcriminal. So.

[Kyle Bennett]

Cin,

I hate to do this to you, I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I've laid a lot of it out in previous posts. It's a high-level, 50,000 ft view, so it's a bit vague, but it gives a direction. I don't have time to redo it now, and I don't want to dump it all back on this thread at this point.

Read some of that, and feel free to email me if you want to talk more. Anybody else here that's not an asshole... err, that I don't think is an asshole, can do the same. You know who you are. And Patrick, I still need to get back to you, I haven't forgotten.

But be warned, I don't have a lot of concrete answers either. All I can do is toss some principles back and forth and see where it leads.

[Cin]

Kyle,
Thank you for responding. I will try to find your posts on here regarding. I haven't been reading everything the last 2 days. I'll email any questions. Thank you for that offer.

Have a nice holiday.

[Ayn_Randian]

But be warned, I don't have a lot of concrete answers either.

No kidding.

[Ayn_Randian]

Then your excellent authority is wrong. Billy may not be George Gruhn, but when it comes to Gibson solid body and and archtop electrics, Billy has a great deal of knowledge.

Hm, no dispute there. My evaluation of Billy's knowledge of guitars was an intentional misrepresentation of how I feel about the matter.

It was, however, a deliberate one and one I hope you'll find educational.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I asserted that Billy has no knowledge of guitars. And you all called me on it. Good; I was wrong (albeit intentionally so).

I will note, however, that when I judged Billy unhappy I was told that if Billy asserts that he is happy, it must be true (because how can anyone know what is in a person's mind?). That didn't square with the overwhelming evidence before me. So I told you all that you were wrong, he is indeed unhappy, and cited MY evidence.

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we would be fools to cling to our beliefs. I'm not going to call you fools, though, you were defending a friend in spite of the overwhelming evidence to contrary.

If you persist in this error, you will then have made yourself a fool. Lying to oneself is the ultimate in foolish acts.

[Kyle Bennett]

But be warned, I don't have a lot of concrete answers either.

No kidding.

By the way, you're one of the ones not invited to email. Should you wake up one morning and think, "Wow, I'm not an asshole anymore", then go ahead.

[Ayn_Randian]

Should you wake up one morning and think, "Wow, I'm not an asshole anymore", then go ahead.

Temper, temper! I learned from Billy, and I've shown how I think of him. It might be best for you to learn from that.

[Bithead]

I will note, however, that when I judged Billy unhappy I was told that if Billy asserts that he is happy, it must be true (because how can anyone know what is in a person's mind?). That didn't square with the overwhelming evidence before me. So I told you all that you were wrong, he is indeed unhappy, and cited MY evidence.

I have my disagreements with Billy, some of which have gotten quite loud over the 15 years or so we've been butting heads. I really must say, I find your read of Billy wanting. I ask you, if you have read Edmund Rostand...(This is from memory, forgive my typos and weird formatics)

LE BRET:
At least this latest pose of yours ~ ruining every chance
That comes your way ~ becomes exaggerated ~

CYRANO:
Very well, then. I exaggerate!
Yes. I exaggerate! On principle. There are things
In this world a man does well to carry to extremes.

LE BRET:
Stop trying to be Three Musketeers in one!
Fortune and glory ~

CYRANO:
What would you have me do?

Seek for the patronage of some great man, And like a creeping vine on a tall tree Crawl upward, where I cannot stand alone? No thank you! Dedicate, as others do, Poems to pawnbrokers? Be a buffoon In the vile hope of teasing out a smile On some cold face? No thank you! East a toad For breakfast every morning? Make my knees Callous, and cultivate a supple spine, ~ Wear out my belly groveling in the dust? No thank you! Scratch the back of any swine That roots up gold for me? Tickle the horns Of Mammon with my left hand, while my right Too proud to know his partners business,
Takes in the fee? No thank you! Use the fire
God gave me to burn incense all day long
No thank you! Publish verses at my own
Expense? No thank you! Be the patron saint
Of a small group of literary souls
Who dine together every Tuesday? No,
I thank you! Shall I labor night and day
To build a reputation on one song,
And never write another? Shall I find
True genius only among Geniuses,
Palpitate over little paragraphs,
And struggle to insinuate my name
In the columns of the Mercury:?
No thank you! Calculate, scheme, be afraid,
Love more to make a visit than a poem,
Seek introductions, favors, influences? ~
No thank you! No, I thank you! And again
I thank you!

But To sing, to laugh, to dream,
To walk in my own way, and be alone,
Free, with an eye to see things as they are,
A voice that means manhood ~ to cock my hat
Where I choose ~ At a word, at a Yes, a No,
To fight ~ or write. To travel any road
Under the sun, under the stars, nor doubt
If fame or fortune lie beyond the bourne ~
Never to make a line I have not heard
In my own heart; yet, with all modesty
To say: My soul, be satisfied with flowers,
With fruit, with weeds even; but gather them
In the one garden you may call your own.
So, when I win some triumph, by some chance,
Render no share to Caesar ~ in a word,
I am too proud to be a parasite,
And if my nature wants the germ that grows
Towering to heaven like the mountain pine,
Or, like the oak, sheltering multitudes ~
I stand, not high it may be ~
But, I stand alone!

Billy's path is not one I would chose. But I do understand it, in my fashion, and respect it. Pity you can't bring yourself quote so far.

[Ayn_Randian]

Billy's path is not one I would chose. But I do understand it, in my fashion, and respect it. Pity you can't bring yourself quote so far.

I never said I didn't understand it.

I've considered respecting it, but I'm not sure.

I just said it's made him unhappy.

[Bithead]

I think the only thing you're sure about is you'd be unhappy in that condition.

Anything more is an extension... and likely a misattribution.

[Urkobold?]

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

[Ayn_Randian]

I think the only thing you're sure about is you'd be unhappy in that condition.

I stated my evidence; feel free to read it.

[Bithead]

And how, save by reading your evidence, (And of course, in looking around, finding reasoning that supered your own) do you suppose I came to my conclusion?

[Ayn_Randian]

And how, save by reading your evidence, (And of course, in looking around, finding reasoning that supered your own) do you suppose I came to my conclusion?

So, we're playing the "My Reason is Better than your Reason" game?

Convince me you are right, then. Show me your superiority.

"There is, however, one moral aspect of the issue that needs clarification. Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as WE advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. To quote from an editorial on this subject in the April 1967 issue of Persuasion: "One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it. . . ." (emphasis added) - AYN RAND Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal.

The battle for freedom is in on the turf of other men's minds...these unjust laws must be fought ideologically. Note by ideology she's using in terms of political ideologies. Capitalist/Free-Marketism/Libertarianism...the key to happiness lies in convincing others in the political ideology.

[Bithead]

So, we're playing the "My Reason is Better than your Reason" game?

Nope. You are.

You're the one trying to change my mind, as as an adjunct, Billy's and several others. Apparently, you've failed, so far to sway people with what passes for your reasoning.

As I understand the ideals of freedom, one of the major ones is the ability to act as individuals. Your extrapolation of Rand, on the other hand seems to conclude that the only way to happiness is to not only be a part of "the group" but to be the one controlling the group, by means of your supposedly superior reasoning.

Somehow that doesn't sound much like individualism to me.

So, we're playing the "My Reason is Better than your Reason" game?

Well, given your most recent response, it's quite clear to me you do not. I had only suspected so initially, but now I am sure of it.

[Bithead]

Oops. Bad quoteblock in the second instance.

Should read:

I never said I didn't understand it.

Well, given your most recent response, it's quite clear to me you do not. I had only suspected so initially, but now I am sure of it.

[Billy Beck]

"Well, given your most recent response, it's quite clear to me you do not."

It's not his purpose to understand it. That's not what he's after.

[Billy Beck]

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Vi glemte alle de ting
vi gjorde som vi ikke sku g?re
og alt det vi ikke sku g?re
som vi burde ha gjort

Og det var ikke for noget
og slet ikke for meget
men det var lykken det var
h?nden p? hjertet, dig omkring livet
hva mere?

[Wikinger Elch]

seitdem ich dich kenne hab' ich ein Problem:
du gehst mir auf die Nerven, baby, und zwar extrem
du redest ohne Punkt und Komma und rund um die Uhr
du holst noch nicht mal Luft dabei, wie machst du das nur?
gib mir bitte eine Chance, geh doch wenigstens mal raus
st?ndig dies Gequatsche - das h?lt doch keiner aus
ein Wasserfall ist harmlos gegen dich
ich kann noch nicht mal wegh?rn, es ist f?rchterlich
du redest Quark den ganzen Tag

[Ian MacKaye]

Petty poets with poison pens
Forcing rhymes to get revenge
They better get the person
Who got them good
Themselves, themselves, themselves

[Andrew]

Last post.

[Urkobold?]

DREAM ON, WHIPPERSNAPPER.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

PEEK A BOO!!

[Urkobold?]

GO LAY AN EGG, THUNDERCHICKEN!

[smartass sob]

Deck the blogs with trolls of folly!
Lol lol lol lol lol...lol lol lol lol! ????

Troll the thread of fools by golly!
Lol lol lol...lol lol lol...lol lol lol! ????

[Urkobold?]

smartass sob,
YOU'RE A SMARMY SON OF A BITCH.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Urkobold,

You silly fuck, you don't know what an egg is, because you clearly stated that the chicken and egg didn't come at all, rather it was the nature of crossing the road that caused the conundrum, as it were, to show that said laying and clucking were, to be sure, left out of the new paradigm of such. Moreover, you clearly don't understand the Omelet Theorem - a clear and meaningful sufficient and necessary component of proper metaphysical understanding of metaphysics: that is to say, what is cracked or broken by the proverbial chef shows that you have no idea what "bork bork bork" really would mean outside of your Kantian Husserl Habermas Descartes Popperian little narrow box of thinking.

UNREAL BULLSHIT YOU SPOUT!!! NOW I SHALL GO AND BANG THE WEIBSKOBOLD!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

That is totally false, Thunderchicken. You obviously are just a fucking nutjob who tries to pollute the actual, true, well-defined epistemological nuances of the ontological nature of egg-laying qua egg-laying.

In fact, in light of your earlier comments, you are the biggest platypus fucker here on this board. And since you've insulted my family, I shall rain my golden shower of twaddlenockery down upon all metaphoric references to various elements contained within the self-encompassing, reasoned responses to the direct, derived, and quite intuitive (actually) outcomes and responses to the global, omnibus answer of the questions at hand.

Since you're clearly incapable of grasping these simple thoughts, you're merely a poseur. Your thunder is a mere colon grumble in a midget in a vast, stadium-like Gestalt of a crowd.

dumbass.

[smartass sob]

smartass sob,
YOU'RE A SMARMY SON OF A BITCH!

I am NOT smarmy - I take a bath everyday!

A son of a bitch I may be, but 'tis merely an accident of birth - the rest of you are all self-made men. Ha!
😉

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Minion,

Mein Gott, you're retarded. What a fucking twaddlenock you are! Show me where I said that! I doubt you can, you vomitous mass.

Pig.

You are the online equivalent to the "to the Pain" outcome. Hell - true love would wretch and heave when looking upon your sad, sorry, pathetic, basement-dwelling, colon parasite excuse for a life. You're such a liar. And I was polite, but you came in hier, without references, waving a piece. That's bush league psych job. I'll take it, shove it up your ass and pull until it goes click. Don't fuck with the Jesus.

And don't even try asking for a Sioux City Sarsaparilla, you bastard of young. Nobody will ever say that hier comes a regular when you get one dose of thunder, you dope smoking moron.

You wouldn't know an outcome or response if it was wearing an OPUS t-shirt, the band or the cartoon character, you pick, fell out of the sky, and danced the Watusi on your face while wearing stiletto heels!

And then you, you dumb fuq living up DUNDEROOO's rectum while wrapped in EDWEIRDOOO, have the audacity to insult me?? I really suggest that you read up on your Hume'ian defense of the Rational Rights of J.S. Mill doing a close reading of Wittgenstein's take on Charle Saunder's Pierce's didactic and deeply sardonic reinterpretation of Bertrand Russell's critique of Solow and Rothbard's devastating attack on the Powell Doctrine, as enacted in Grenada (while based on the Mastif-Central Rebellion and Robot Riot) before you embarrass yourself any further.

Fool.

[Urkobold™]

You silly fuck, you don't know what an egg is

Fuck you. I ate a syphilis omelet for breakfast. Ask anyone who knows me. I break the egg. Fuckface.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

What the hell is this? I am the JUGGERNAUT of the Internets. I'll beat the shit out of you with Mr. Steven Crane, as a matter of fact. You know that that you're full of shit and the biggest goddamned asshole hier. You have no clue that the nature of the pit qua pit, as quoted viciously in the Third Book of the Bella Donna - something that you should know, but you go ahead and move the goalposts.

608 555 0896 call me you douchnozzle. I fucking double dog dare you to. Or I'll borrow some money and walk to Taintsville to challenge you. And don't you fucking dare hang up on me.

And you know damn well that the only syphilis is your Aunt Phyllis. You Greek-food-loving-earwax mouth breathing groin pull of orthodontia headgear.

[lunchstealer]

So how was everybody's Christmas? I'm at my folks' house with limited internet access (or rather, limited time to waste online). So I can assume that nothing constructive has happened in my absence?

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Temper, temper, Thunder. Thunderturd. My my. You're clearly in the Mr Sulu fan club.

And I know Urkobold - an honorable sort of chap, and, on the honor of my semi whithered taint, I know that Urkobold would never change the goalposts.

As you plainly

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

(sorry for double) Preview is friend.

Temper, temper, Thunder. Thunderturd. My my. You're clearly in the Mr Sulu fan club.

And I know Urkobold - an honorable sort of chap, and, on the honor of my semi whithered taint, I know that Urkobold would never change the goalposts.

As you plainly can see.

And don't fucking quote to me those works that I know oh so well. You're clearly a fascist version of Foucault/Schumpeter. What a fucking poseur. Not "poser" as you said earlier. What a fucking stupid asshole, Thunderturd.

OOH you're threatening me. What are you going to sell to get the money, dickwad? Your spunk-stained socks and scarf? Your empty cheetos packages? What the fuck do you have in your Grandma's basement that you could sell?

I dare you. And I did call. You asshole ignored it. But I didn't leave a message, because I didn't want to eat your cell minutes. That is so (218) of you.

Jerkwad.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

I am waiting. Why aren't you calling?

Oh yeah - you're a fucking coward.

And I got stuff to sell. Lots of stuff. I've been off of the IRS ever since they went out of business. But some groups did do well on that label, asshole.

And you clearly don't know your philosophy. That was John Rawls you're thinking of, bastard. His collaboration with Ludwig von Jackson, dickhead. Go ahead and keep showing what a blithering poseur you are. I'm done wasting time with you. Gone. Canceling my subscription. And I bet you really are a fiziks type.

Fool.

[Urkobold?]

Sorry it took me so long to get back here. I've been working on putting the batteries in a Playskool Strum'n'Play set. This might take me all day.

I emailed Virginia Postrel about you losers. She agrees with me. You're all banned.

Fuck off.

[Bithead]

It's not his purpose to understand it. That's not what he's after.

Exactly so?. He is not. Which is why I have responded as I have. That's exactly the point I've making. Or more correctly, I've been attempting to direct the conversation as to reveal that fact. My success there is for others to decide.

I say again, for clarity; What he's about is trying to change minds, here, not understand "the other". I've always understood since he started this nonsense with you, that he's not about understanding the situation, he's about changing the world (specifically, you, in this case) to his own image, because he thinks his angle on the world a superior one. That's fine with me if he wants to do that? but at least have the honesty to say it that way at the outset. Invoking Rand on the point exposes the fraud, in my view. His fear, clearly, is that he'll be dismissed if he's honest about his intents? and that fear is justified, IMV.

So why did I respond?

Look, I know going in, that I have no hope in hell of adjusting his thinking on the matter, since he has clearly, thusfar, engaged in none. His notes here seem to me to be generated by rote, and not by process of actual thought. Further, my speaking up was not a defense of you... in my view you need none. My intent is not to change his mind, (An impossible task) but to provide a counterpoint to his self-absorbed misdirection, given there are others reading, here. He's using big words, they may even be mentally challenged enough to take him seriously.

(You may note, if you read closely, my scorn.)

BTW; While my reference to Cyrano was a bit over the top in a few respects, (I daresay, you thought so, too?) ? and a little off target in some other small areas, (no analogy is ever perfect, after all), I thought the overall perception of freedom being projected by Cyrano in that passage similar enough to remark on it as I did. The passage came to mind, for some reason, as I was reading the exchange here, and I thought it of worth. I wondered if it would bring a direct reaction from him. It didn't. In fact, I'm unclear if he (or, anyone else) actually understood what I was driving at with that passage.

(shrug) Given the last several posts, it appears the whole pile is a lost cause, anyway.

[Billy Beck]

"Floorboard squeak
And out come the freaks..."

At a place called Reason, no less.

You guise are awesome. No; really.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

"This might take me all day."

At a place called reason, no less.

You irksome Urkobold (Irkobold?) jerks are absolutely awesome.

now pfuq ofv.

[Jake Boone]

URKOBOLD and friends
Bring their brand of Christmas cheer...
Jolly withered taints!

[Urkobold?]

Blundercock might be starting to get it. There's hope for you.

Fuck yourself, asswipe!

[Andrew]

Bottom post.

[Urkobold?]

Andrew,

YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE WRONG TROLL.

[Andrew]

Who's the right troll?

[Urkobold?]

NOT THIS ONE.

[Jake Boone]

The time, friends, is here.
The real action starts now:
The fight for last post!

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Urkobold, you wacky goon.

I bet that you don't even know that it was I who taught the WEIBSKOBOLD that thing you like.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THUNDERCOQ AU VIN IS WRONG AGAIN. YOU LIAR!!!!

IT WAS MR. STEVEN CRANE WHO TAUGHT THE WEIBSKOBOLD THE TRICK THAT THE URKOBOLD LIKES. I KNOW BECAUSE HE TAUGHT IT TO ME, TOO!

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE TRICK IS, YOU POSEUR.

NOW GO BACK TO YOUR FUCKING ORGANIC, FREE-RANGE CAGE AND AWAIT THE COLONEL.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Minion, Minion, Minion.

You lying fuck. I taught Mr. Steven Crane, too.

[Jake Boone]

It's so quiet now
Will this thread now rest in peace
Or is it zombie?

[Andrew]

Undead post.

[smartass sob]

post #2083

So now can we begin to discuss the "real essentials"? 😉

[smartass sob]

Andrew got post #2083 - I got #2084.

[Dead Thread Fred]

This thread would be a fool-killer's paradise!

[highnumber]

Like vultures, you are.
Please keep away from this thread.
Urkobold has plans.

[Doktor Dikk]

Billy Beck said: With friends like that, I might as well splash down a syphilis cocktail on the rocks.

Hell, dude, we figured you already had years ago; that's why you've spent the last 2000 + post-thread trying to spit out the taste.

[Jake Boone]

URKOBOLD has plans?
I certainly shan't thwart him
I shall post no more

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

THE URKOBOLD AND HIS UNFUNNY GOONS, MINIONS, THRONGS, AND HOARDS WILL BE DEFEATED.

THUNDERCHICKEN HAS SPOKEN: CALVINBALL.

OR ARE YOU TOO AFRAID?

[Andrew]

Hobbes post.

[Jake Boone]

I reiterate:
No, I shall not post again
(To make myself clear)

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

Yeah, yeah, Thunderturd. Choke away. Not only are we not afraid of you, you shoulda seen us last night - we have our moves all ready for you, you cow patty.

You've lost this thread, and you'll lose at Calvinball. Just get someone to take you to the bus station, and we'll float the cash for a ticket. Then we'll show you. On the Calvinball court.

Then a Chinese Downhill.

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Chinese Downhill?

You're on. But IIRC you're in Chicago. The great ironing board. You're too much of a fucking tool to realize that. There is no Chinese downhill there. What are you going to do? Go down a staircase?

Moron.

[Jake Boone]

Some can't stop posting
But me? No, perish the thought!
I've already stopped

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

That's it, Thunderturd. Just go pluck yourself. Make turducken out of yourself and two friends. Do whatever the hell you want, but fuq off from hier.

You ruin the internets with your tuff gai act.

Calvinball or coward. You decide.

[Jake Boone]

I'd best sum it up:
I have absolutely stopped
No more posts from me!

[THUNDERCHICKEN]

Who the hell are you, Minion - You're a retard. What the fuck are you blathering about? You show up in a cloud of shit dust, and what the hell do you do?

And I see how you've backed down from your Chinese Downhill threat. Fool. You're the coward.

[Urkobold?]

Submitted for your approval:
Meet Billy Beck, an angry, foolish man, obsessed with his convictions, certain of his righteousness. A pitiful man who feels empowered by making idle threats on the internet, by spewing vulgarities with no provocation. A man who has tried to substitute internet assholery for what is genuine, true, and lasting: Love. Love for his fellow man. Love that brings respect for others. Love that brings understanding of others. Love that brings lasting happiness and real righteousness.

Today, Billy will ascend the stairs from his grandma's basement but will find that what is on the other side of the door is not the same world that is down below. All of his certainties, his internet strength, and his electronic friends will be gone. All that will remain is his hawaiian shirt. and Ponytail...

IN THE LAST POST ZONE.............................

[Andrew]

Zone post.

[UKOBOLD]

Slowly fades away...

[Urkobold?]

Jerk!

[basketball shoes]

Good editorial. I tend to believe that in most things people who are aware of the risks, should be able to do what they want, and then live with the consequences. Recently however [url=http://www.uggsoutstore.com]ugg stores[/url], it's become clear that many pro football players have suffered and eventuall died from complications related brain injuries. This was being kept from the public and presumably from players. Players should know first hand what their sport can do to them. Talk to the sons and daughters of former pros who witnessed their dads live the last decades of their lives alone and in misery [url=http://www.ugg-outlet.org]uggs outlet[/url] because of brain damage from previous injuries.
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[basketball shoes]

[url=http://www.uggsoutstore.com]ugg stores[/url], it's become clear that many pro football players have suffered and eventuall died from complications related brain injuries. This was being kept from the public and presumably from players. Players should know first hand what their sport can do to them. Talk to the sons and daughters of former pros who witnessed their dads live the last decades of their lives alone and in misery [url=http://www.ugg-outlet.org]uggs outlet[/url] because of brain damage from previous injuries.

[basketball shoes]

Zone post.

[ugg stores]

i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, wh
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care

and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your

writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most,

href="http://www.uggsoutletstores.com">ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA

(Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your

situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle -

it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.

[ugg stores]

i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, wh
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care

and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your

writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most,

href="http://www.uggsoutletstores.com">ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA

(Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your

situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle -

it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.

[ugg stores]

i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, wh
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care

and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your

writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most,

href="http://www.uggsoutletstores.com">ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA

(Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your

situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle -

it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.

[ugg stores]

i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, wh
i could help your family. i would buy you a home, pay for jani to get the help, whatever help she needs - research, constant care

and attention, all of it.ugg stores the most frustrating thing i find in all of your

writings is the glaring, horrifying fact that healthcare is a privledge in this country. those that need it the most,

href="http://www.uggsoutletstores.com">ugg storescan't have it. no matter how desperate and dire their situation. can MHA

(Mental Health America of LA) help you in anyway?discount ugg your

situtation is SO unique that there most be some work around whatever "rules" are in place. i'm sure you've researched every angle -

it must exhaust you to have people throw out ideas.

[Jake Boone]

Many years have passed
Yet the battle will be mine
See me take last post!

[Kyle Bennett]

Not a chance, Jake.

[VikingMoose]

enjoys the salty ham tears of the faux anarchists...

[Jake Boone]

I wait for two months
I sneak in like a ninja
Now I have last post.

[The Angry Optimist]

Whoever that Ayn_Randian guy was, he sure was smart.

[Duncan20903]

Wow, in the 2100+ that have been posted I hope that somebody has pointed out that NORML and CaNORML are different entities.

[Kyle Bennett]

Ahh, the good old days. I find it ages well. Ayn_Randian, have you woken up with that morning epiphany yet?

[Kyle Bennett]

Ahh, the good old days. I find it ages well. Ayn_Randian, have you woken up with that morning epiphany yet?

[Billy Beck]

I wish that John Hannah had.

I mean it.

[Jake Boone]

How're the ring sales going, Billy? I'm not sure that doubling down on the "gaping asshole" strategy is really your best move, but I suppose the market will decide.

[Billy Beck]

"How're the ring sales going, Billy?"

I wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about, sonny.

[Jake Boone]

If you actually don't know, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

But if you perform a search on this thread for the word "gaping" perhaps you could figure it out before you embarrass yourself further, you funny little fellow, you.

[Billy Beck]

Is that the best you can do, Jake? Really?

That's as serious as you can get?

[Jake Boone]

Oh, I can be serious, when the audience warrants it.

But perhaps you can tell me the appropriate level of seriousness to use with someone who'd, say, go run down mentions of a recently-deceased person across the Internet in order to shit in the deceased's memorial threads, in a pathetic, self-aggrandizing attempt to make the occasion All About Him.