1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    14 Jan '10 03:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    You fired the first salvo with "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but..."
    But your edit of AThousandYoung's post misrepresents the exchange.

    What he actually said was: "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but...either/or fallacy".

    Very different.
  2. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 03:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    This is a long lived pattern with wajoma. Anyway, I targetted my aggression at his argument, showing why it was flawed. That's not quite the same as simply calling someone a moron.

    Read my post and you might see my point of view. Read wajoma's and you might find him entertaining, but not convincing.

    I'm not so upset that he "retaliated" as ho ...[text shortened]... influenced my decision a bit. I mean...is that all that Libertarians can offer? Insults?
    Haha, it went over your head, it was a little more subtle then just calling you a moron, and even if it were as blunt as that it would only be a taste of your own medicine.

    I don't believe you ever were Libertarian, but that is neither here nor there, that you claim to have changed your position because of me really just exposes you as incredibly shallow. Yep there are Libertarians that I don't like and yep I don't always like their style, (if you think I'm abrasive you're being overly sensitive) but that has never changed what it is and what it is based on, i.e. the non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on.
  3. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Jan '10 04:031 edit
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Haha, it went over your head, it was a little more subtle then just calling you a moron, and even if it were as blunt as that it would only be a taste of your own medicine.

    I don't believe you ever were Libertarian, but that is neither here nor there, that you claim to have changed your position because of me really just exposes you as incredibly shallow. the non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on.
    Lack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit. Basically the fact that your arguments were the best Libertarians could come up with was more like it.

    non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on

    What are you talking about? If you really don't believe in the initiation of force under any circumstances then what's to prevent people from taking "your" stuff?

    What you don't believe in is the initiation of force to take things from you. You're ok with initiating force to keep "your" things from others.

    Whether or not something is rightfully "yours" however seems to depend on whether or not you can hide your trail effectively. That's what you've hinted at in another thread...if they can't prove you took it, then too bad for them was the gist of your argument.
  4. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 04:08
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Lack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit.

    non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on

    What are you talking about? If you really don't believe in the initiation of force under any circumstances then what's to prevent people from taking "your" st ...[text shortened]... ke things from you. You're ok with initiating force to keep "your" things from others.
    If I have rightfully acquired property and you respect that right then everyones' is happy. If you do not respect that right then it is you that will be initiating the force or threat of force.

    It's all good until you initiate. You see why that word, initiate, is so important. If you do choose to initiate force towards me and mine then I am justified in retaliating. You see the difference? I would not be the initiator.

    If you have trouble with this then my doubts as to your previous claims of being libertarian are proven.
  5. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 04:10
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Lack of respect for you influenced me...a bit. Not much. Don't give yourself too much credit. Basically the fact that your arguments were the best Libertarians could come up with was more like it.

    non-initiation of force principle, the opposite of which, you now appear to thrive on

    What are you talking about? If you really don't believ ...[text shortened]... they can't prove you took it, then too bad for them was the gist of your argument.
    Ahhh, the overused edit function.
  6. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Jan '10 04:13
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Ahhh, the overused edit function.
    Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.

    This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:

    Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.

    In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
  7. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 04:15
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.

    This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:

    Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.

    In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
    Please please please, try to find some reputable definition of libertarianism that says it is ok to steal and launder money.
  8. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 04:16
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it.

    This was what you said about determining whether something is rightfully acquired or not:

    Specific names, dates, places and proof. If you have all those things then good luck bringing a case.

    In other words, if you can launder your stolen money, it's rightfully yours.
    By 'good luck' I mean good luck, it was not sarcasm.
  9. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Jan '10 04:17
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Please please please, try to find some reputable definition of libertarianism that says it is ok to steal and launder money.
    YOU said that if they can't prove it was stolen then it's rightfully acquired.

    "Money Laundering" means hiding the fact that it was stolen so that nobody can prove it.

    So if you steal money, and launder it, then nobody can prove you stole it, and therefore it's rightfully acquired in wajomaworld.
  10. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    77440
    14 Jan '10 04:20
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    YOU said that if they can't prove it was stolen then it's rightfully acquired.

    "Money Laundering" means hiding the fact that it was stolen so that nobody can prove it.

    So if you steal money, and launder it, then nobody can prove you stole it, and therefore it's rightfully acquired in wajomaworld.
    Now read this:

    It is not ok to steal money, stealing money is an initiation of force.
  11. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Jan '10 04:21
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Now read this:

    It is not ok to steal money, stealing money is an initiation of force.
    Great! How should we address the fact that Lord Whatsisface acquired his fortune from slavery?
  12. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    14 Jan '10 04:23
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Great! How should we address the fact that Lord Whatsisface acquired his fortune from slavery?
    And of course all those other "Dark Secrets" that are said to be hidden behind every family fortune?
  13. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    14 Jan '10 13:37
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    The people on Wall St and the some thousands employed by the corporation.
    You don't seem to understand the purpose of a "safety net"; it is not to insure that people who are presently making a lot of money continue to do so ad infinitum.
  14. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    14 Jan '10 16:491 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Great! How should we address the fact that Lord Whatsisface acquired his fortune from slavery?
    indeed.

    a great deal of the wealth that now exists in the US and other "Western" nations can be traced back to the sweat from many a slave or serf.

    this is property that was essentially stolen from these people - by use of some of the worst force imaginable.

    so the Libertarian position should be advocating a proportionate return of property to the descendants of the people who were forced to toil so hard to produce it.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    14 Jan '10 21:043 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34840056/ns/business-us_business

    Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the outrage directed at the payment of bonuses seems misplaced. The firms made huge profits last year; why shouldn't the employees who contributed to those profits be compensated accordingly? Do people understand that if they are not it's not like th in about employees who contributed to a firm's profits getting a large share of the same?
    I share your outrage that these institutions accepted money from the federal government, but now want complete automony from them. It just doesn't work like that. Its like doing business with the mob. Once you are in, you are in. There is no backing away. One thing about it though, tax payers will get their money back from the banks and then some, however, the money that tax payers have thrown and are throwing towards Fannie and Freddie wil never be seen again. In effect, they are money pits. Speaking of Fannie and Freddie, how about its CEO Franklin Raines making about $90 million off their debacle? Are you equally as outraged? Is Obama? My guess is that since Freddie and Fannie are part of the etitlement culture no attention will be payed to them.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree