861 Loser - Edwards

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

Yes, yes, everyone's judgment is inevitable. So what?
2) If morality is irrelevant to "the Law," why should "the Law" outrank your understanding of right and wrong? It doesn't.

Everyone must rely on his own judgment. The "law" doesn't outrank
that judgment. Therefore:

__a) we have an obligation to place the law above our own
sense of right and wong, or
__b) individual judgment trumps "the law" when deciding right
and wrong

One answer makes you an anarchist. The other makes you a self
contradictory twit.

--XCobraJock

[Richard Macdonald]

" Ford Prefect" <fortyfukin9ers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l411e.27819$mq2.112@trnddc08...

"Richard Macdonald" <rmacdonald@verizon.net> wrote in message news:jr01e.21042$191.1841@trnddc02...

" Ford Prefect" <fortyfukin9ers@gmail.com> wrote in message news:JN%0e.1484$Go4.548@trnddc05...

"Richard Macdonald" <ramcpaea@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:TOW0e.735$vd.534@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> " Ford Prefect" <fortyfukin9ers@gmail.com> wrote in message> news2F%d.6180$uw6.2219@trnddc06...> >I think we have a winner here, folks. Good argument.>> So then, if I embrace anarchy, and firmly believe that EVERYTHING> in the world belongs to me, you will support my belief? Depends upon your definition of anarchy. My definition upholds the sacredness of the individual and their rights. So does, I believe, the constitution of the united States of America.

http://www.m-w.com/ Main Entry: an·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när- Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH- 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker> 3 : ANARCHISM Then you don't believe in Anarchy.

Some piece of crap dictionary has redefined the word and that is what is empowering you right now? Geez, give it a rest. The original definition of that word was "The individual decides."

No the original definition is from the Greek for no ruler.

Now as to the individual decides, I have decided that everything
in the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presently
has it. Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decision
morally correct in taking whatever I want from whoever has
what I want, since no external moral code seems to have
any relevance to an anarchist.

[XCobraJock]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

No the original definition is from the Greek for no ruler.

Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald?

__a) you
__b) someone else _________________ (please specify)

If you picked 'b,' whose judgment did you rely on to
choose that particular ruler for yourself?

Now as to the individual decides,

The individual decides what?

__a) how he should live his lfe, according to his own best judgment, or
__b) that literally whatever he believes determines reality

If you pick 'b,' where did you get that idea?

I think you're in the same trap ed senter fell into. You
seem to think that using your own judgment to determine right
from wrong means that whatever you determine is "right"
literally MAKES it objectively right. That's obviously false.
Using your own best judgment is INEVITABLE. Whether it is
CORRECT or not depends on the quality of your perceptions, and
the soundness of your best judgment. If your best judgment
sucks, your view of reality will suck, even if your perceptions
are okay. By going from "Everyone uses his own judgment," to
"therefore I, Richard Macdonald, own the whole world," you're
demonstrating poor judgment.

I have decided that everything in the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presently has it.

Then whether you understand what anarchy means or not, you
have a poor grasp on what determines reality.

Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decision morally correct

Blatant non sequitur and deliberate misinterpretation of
anarchism. This:

"Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment,"

does not mean this: "Therefore Richard Macdonald owns everything
in the world."

in taking whatever I want from whoever has what I want, since no external moral code seems to have any relevance to an anarchist.

Why must you assume everyone's moral code is external?

Which moral code do you assume should apply to everyone?

Where did it come from?

What external moral code do you pick to be "the one" for you?

Whose judgement did you use to choose that one?

Why is that particular moral code relevant to you while all
the other moral codes out there aren't?

If you can use your own judgment to choose an external moral
code that seems relevant to you based on your own judgment
of 'relevance,' how is that different from simply using YOUR
OWN judgment to develop your own moral code to begin with?

When you choose a moral code, do you bend the moral code
slightly to conform to your own judgment of right and wrong,
or do you discard your own sense of right and wrong and adopt
what the external moral code says is right?

Whose judgment did you use to do that?

--XCobraJock

[Richard Macdonald]

"XCobraJock" <JackneySneeb@nogov4me.net> wrote in message
news:114ajq8nck7j283@corp.supernews.com...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

No the original definition is from the Greek for no ruler.

Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald?

You are throwing smoke to avoid my question.

Now as to the individual decides, I have decided that everything in the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presently has it. Then whether you understand what anarchy means or not, you have a poor grasp on what determines reality.

Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decision morally correct

Blatant non sequitur and deliberate misinterpretation of anarchism. This: "Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment,"

OK, using my own "best judgement" I believe that anything
I want belongs to me and I may take what I want using any
means I can use to obtain what I want from anyone else.

Either You support my statement or you oppose the use
of a persons "own best judgement" as a standard.

[XCobraJock]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

No the original definition is from the Greek for no ruler.Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald? You are throwing smoke to avoid my question.

You didn't ask me a qestion.
Please answer my question, and quit blowing smoke:

Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald?

__a) you
__b) someone else _________________ (please specify)

If you picked 'b,' whose judgment did you rely on to
choose that particular ruler for yourself?

Now as to the individual decides, I have decided that everythingin the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presentlyhas it.Then whether you understand what anarchy means or not, youhave a poor grasp on what determines reality.

Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decisionmorally correct

Blatant non sequitur and deliberate misinterpretation ofanarchism. This:

"Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment,"

does not mean this: "Therefore Richard Macdonald owns everything
in the world."

"Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment," OK, using my own "best judgement" I believe that (1) anything I want belongs to me and I may take what I want using any means I can use to obtain what I want from anyone else. Either You support my statement or you (2) oppose the use of a persons "own best judgement" as a standard.

False choice. The false choice fallacy attempts to prove a
conclusion by offering only two choices, one supporting the
fallacious reasoner's opinion, and the other patently absurd.
However, it is a fallacy because there are other options
available that he does not present. Here is just one of them:

3) Your best judgment, while inevitable, is not necessarily
correct. Just because you believe you own everything in the
world doesn't mean you do own everything in the world.

If you read a litle further, you might begin to get it:

The individual decides what?

__a) how he should live his lfe, according to his own best judgment, or
__b) that literally whatever he believes determines reality

If you pick 'b,' where did you get that idea?

I think you're in the same trap ed senter fell into. You
seem to think that using your own judgment to determine right
from wrong means that whatever you determine is "right"
literally MAKES it objectively right. That's obviously false.
Using your own best judgment is INEVITABLE. Whether it is
CORRECT or not depends on the quality of your perceptions, and
the soundness of your best judgment. If your best judgment
sucks, your view of reality will suck, even if your perceptions
are okay. By going from "Everyone uses his own judgment," to
"therefore I, Richard Macdonald, own the whole world," you're
demonstrating poor judgment.

I have decided that everything in the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presently has it.

Then whether you understand what anarchy means or not, you
have a poor grasp on what determines reality.

Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decision morally correct

Blatant non sequitur and deliberate misinterpretation of
anarchism. This:

"Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment,"

does not mean this: "Therefore Richard Macdonald owns everything
in the world."

in taking whatever I want from whoever has what I want, since no external moral code seems to have any relevance to an anarchist.

Why must you assume everyone's moral code is external?

Which moral code do you assume should apply to everyone?

Where did it come from?

What external moral code do you pick to be "the one" for you?

Whose judgement did you use to choose that one?

Why is that particular moral code relevant to you while all
the other moral codes out there aren't?

If you can use your own judgment to choose an external moral
code that seems relevant to you based on your own judgment
of 'relevance,' how is that different from simply using YOUR
OWN judgment to develop your own moral code to begin with?

When you choose a moral code, do you bend the moral code
slightly to conform to your own judgment of right and wrong,
or do you discard your own sense of right and wrong and adopt
what the external moral code says is right?

Whose judgment did you use to do that?

--XCobraJock

[Richard Macdonald]

"XCobraJock" <JackneySneeb@nogov4me.net> wrote in message
news:114av4b6s4uchbc@corp.supernews.com...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

>No the original definition is from the Greek for no ruler.Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald? You are throwing smoke to avoid my question.

You didn't ask me a qestion. Please answer my question, and quit blowing smoke: Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald?

I rule myself and decide that anythjing I want is mine for the taking.

>Now as to the individual decides, I have decided that everything>in the world that I want belongs to me, no matter who presently>has it.Then whether you understand what anarchy means or not, youhave a poor grasp on what determines reality.>Therefore I am by your assertions of personal decision>morally correctBlatant non sequitur and deliberate misinterpretation ofanarchism. This: "Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment,"

In my own best judgement it sure does.

"Each person is responsible for using his own best judgment," OK, using my own "best judgement" I believe that (1) anything I want belongs to me and I may take what I want using any means I can use to obtain what I want from anyone else. Either You support my statement or you (2) oppose the use of a persons "own best judgement" as a standard. False choice. The false choice fallacy attempts to prove a conclusion by offering only two choices, one supporting the fallacious reasoner's opinion, and the other patently absurd. However, it is a fallacy because there are other options available that he does not present. Here is just one of them:

So you say that a persons own best judgement is the only real standard
and yet you reject my own best judgement as a valid standard.

So is:
A. My own best judgement that anything that I want is mine for the taking
valid
or is
B. The use of an individuals own best judgement an invalid standard.

[XCobraJock]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald? I rule myself and decide that anythjing I want is mine for the taking.

1) I didn't ask "Who rules you," I asked, "who SHOULD rule you," Mr.
Macdonald. That's the problem with bad judgment, you see: you
can't ever get to the point because you don't know how to read,
understand, and follow instructions.

2) Just because you rule yourself doesn't mean you own everything.
You use bad judgment and even worse logic.

So you say that a persons own best judgement is the only real standard

No. I say that while individual judgment is INEVITABLE (that means
it is unavoidable) - it is not the ONLY available standard. However,
it is the ultimate arbiter of what you will accept as your own
standard of what is right for you.

and yet you reject my own best judgement as a valid standard.

I reject your conclusion as being based on BAD JUDGMENT. Compare
these two statements:

1) "I have no choice but to use my best judgment to detemine what
I should do."

2) "My judgment is always right, and I can change reality with
what I believe."

Now, answer this - which of those is true?
__a) 1, __b) 2, __c) both a and b

If you picked anything other than 'a,' you need to read my
previous posts again.

So is: A. My own best judgement that anything that I want is mine for the taking valid or is B. The use of an individuals own best judgement an invalid standard.

Another false choice fallacy. The answer is

C. "While your own best judgment may be right or wrong, you are
responsible for determining right and wrong using your own
judgment. It isn't optional. That doesn't mean your judgment
is always good. Your best judgment might be really ****ty
judgment (especially if you're accustomed to believing in blind
obedience to others). You're still the one responsible for the
consequences of using it."

--XCobraJock

[Richard Macdonald]

"XCobraJock" <JackneySneeb@nogov4me.net> wrote in message
news:114b49d8m5pr99d@corp.supernews.com...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald? I rule myself and decide that anythjing I want is mine for the taking.

1) I didn't ask "Who rules you," I asked, "who SHOULD rule you," Mr. Macdonald. That's the problem with bad judgment, you see: you can't ever get to the point because you don't know how to read, understand, and follow instructions. 2) Just because you rule yourself doesn't mean you own everything. You use bad judgment and even worse logic.

So you say that a persons own best judgement is the only real standard

No. I say that while individual judgment is INEVITABLE (that means it is unavoidable) - it is not the ONLY available standard. However, it is the ultimate arbiter of what you will accept as your own standard of what is right for you.

and yet you reject my own best judgement as a valid standard.

I reject your conclusion as being based on BAD JUDGMENT. Compare these two statements:

So then what is THE standard for judgement is not the individuals "own best
judgement"

1) "I have no choice but to use my best judgment to detemine what I should do." 2) "My judgment is always right, and I can change reality with what I believe." Now, answer this - which of those is true? __a) 1, __b) 2, __c) both a and b If you picked anything other than 'a,' you need to read my previous posts again.

So is: A. My own best judgement that anything that I want is mine for the taking valid or is B. The use of an individuals own best judgement an invalid standard.

Another false choice fallacy. The answer is C. "While your own best judgment may be right or wrong, you are responsible for determining right and wrong using your own judgment. It isn't optional. That doesn't mean your judgment is always good. Your best judgment might be really ****ty judgment (especially if you're accustomed to believing in blind obedience to others). You're still the one responsible for the consequences of using it."

I have given you my "own best judgement" and you have rejected its validity

Ergo, using "your own best judgement" is no more valid a measure than any
other.

[XCobraJock]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

>Who should rule you, Mr. Macdonald?I rule myself and decide that anythjing I want is mine for the taking.1) I didn't ask "Who rules you," I asked, "who SHOULD rule you," Mr.Macdonald. That's the problem with bad judgment, you see: youcan't ever get to the point because you don't know how to read,understand, and follow instructions.2) Just because you rule yourself doesn't mean you own everything.You use bad judgment and even worse logic.

So you say that a persons own best judgement is the only real standard

No. I say that while individual judgment is INEVITABLE (that meansit is unavoidable) - it is not the ONLY available standard. However,it is the ultimate arbiter of what you will accept as your ownstandard of what is right for you.

and yet you reject my own best judgement as a valid standard.

I reject your conclusion as being based on BAD JUDGMENT. Comparethese two statements: So then what is THE standard for judgement is not the individuals "own best judgement"

There is no "THE" standard for judgment. What are you talking about?

In your judgment, who SHOULD rule you?

1) "I have no choice but to use my best judgment to detemine whatI should do."2) "My judgment is always right, and I can change reality withwhat I believe."Now, answer this - which of those is true?__a) 1, __b) 2, __c) both a and bIf you picked anything other than 'a,' you need to read myprevious posts again.

So is:A. My own best judgement that anything that I want is mine for the takingvalidor isB. The use of an individuals own best judgement an invalid standard.

Another false choice fallacy. The answer isC. "While your own best judgment may be right or wrong, you areresponsible for determining right and wrong using your ownjudgment. It isn't optional. That doesn't mean your judgmentis always good. Your best judgment might be really ****tyjudgment (especially if you're accustomed to believing in blindobedience to others). You're still the one responsible for theconsequences of using it." I have given you my "own best judgement" and you have rejected its validity

The judgment that you own everything on the planet? You have shown
no reasonable basis for such a conclusion. Your best judgment is
pathetically weak if it leads you to think you own everything (in
my judgment).

Ergo, using "your own best judgement" is no more valid a measure than any other.

Good observation. However, it IS the EXCLUSIVE arbiter for you as
to what kind of moral code you will adopt as your own - and any such
moral code can be no more valid than you determining your own moral
principles by reliance on your perceptions, experience, and judgment to
determine your own conclusions about right and wrong. Does that mean
you will automatically be right? No. Does it mean you are nevertheless
responsible for determining right and wrong for you? Yes. Since you
selected whatever moral code you chose by subjecting its principles
and precepts to your own judgment of right and wrong to begin with,
how could it be any other way?

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

Richard Macdonald wrote:
I have given you my "own best judgement" and you have rejected its validity The judgment that you own everything on the planet? You have shown no reasonable basis for such a conclusion. Your best judgment is pathetically weak if it leads you to think you own everything (in my judgment).

Maybe the two of you should duke it out to determine who in fact is right.

Ergo, using "your own best judgement" is no more valid a measure than any other.

Good observation. However, it IS the EXCLUSIVE arbiter for you as to what kind of moral code you will adopt as your own - and any such moral code can be no more valid than you determining your own moral principles by reliance on your perceptions, experience, and judgment to determine your own conclusions about right and wrong. Does that mean you will automatically be right? No. Does it mean you are nevertheless responsible for determining right and wrong for you? Yes. Since you selected whatever moral code you chose by subjecting its principles and precepts to your own judgment of right and wrong to begin with, how could it be any other way?

oinkymalloy speaks, yet says nothing. Whoopi!!! Everyone has an opinion...
We've go it already.

The question is what happens when opinions collide?

oinkymalloy: "Tough ****. You must live with the consequences of your
judgment even if it gets you killed. "Government" doesn't exist. The
state is more likely to make things worse."

A more rational person: "Govt by the People under the rule of Law
provides a remedy for the inevitable conflict among individuals."

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

The question is what happens when opinions collide? oinkymalloy: "Tough ****. You must live with the consequences of your judgment even if it gets you killed. "Government" doesn't exist. The state is more likely to make things worse." A more rational person: "Govt by the People under the rule of Law provides a remedy for the inevitable conflict among individuals,"

which leads to:

Mass extortion, graft, war, corruption, Martha Stewart going
to prison while OJ, Bobby Blake, and Clinton run free
.. . .wonderful result of the belief in the Divine Right of
Politicians saving you from the effects of relying on your
own judgment.

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

The question is what happens when opinions collide? oinkymalloy: "Tough ****. You must live with the consequences of your judgment even if it gets you killed. "Government" doesn't exist. The state is more likely to make things worse." A more rational person: "Govt by the People under the rule of Law provides a remedy for the inevitable conflict among individuals,"

which leads to: Mass extortion, graft, war, corruption, Martha Stewart going to prison while OJ, Bobby Blake, and Clinton run free . . .wonderful result of the belief in the Divine Right of Politicians saving you from the effects of relying on your own judgment.

I don't know what you mean by "Divine Right of Politicians", but Govt by
the People under the rule of Law is designed to save you from the
effects of someone else's bad judgment. You can do whatever you want as
long as you remain in your own realm and your judgment doesn't effect
anyone else.

I suppose in oinkymalloy's world, insider trading is ok while accused
murderers and a sex addict's play with semantics don't get a fair trial?
("mass extortion, graft, war, corruption" are too vague to comment upon
and are obviously the product of a confused mind...)

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "Divine Right of Politicians",

Simple: the belief that politicians have some sort of
god-given right to command obedience to their wishes
that we mere mortals do not. How else would they get
the right to make "laws," a right no one else has?

In the world I live in, thanks to millions of people
believing politicians will save them, sex offenders get
turned loose on society, liars and thieves go unpunished,
and a nice Democrat lady goes to prison for five months
for fibbing to FBI thugs. Oh, and the courts have ruled
that the FBI thugs CAN lie to entrap the rest of us if
they want. That's the kind of world I live in, thanks
to a lot of jackasses swallowing that "by the people,
for the people" horsecrap, and voting the wost kinds of
people into office to "save" themselves from the effects
of other people's bad judgment (and their own). The
fact that it doesn't work doesn't deter the superstitious
fools into trying it over and over. In fact, that's a
popular definition of insanity these days:

a) Insanity = doing the same thing over and over expecting
different results.

b) Voting = doing the same thing over and over expecting
different results.

c) Ergo: Voting = Insanity

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "Divine Right of Politicians",

Simple: the belief that politicians have some sort of god-given right to command obedience to their wishes that we mere mortals do not.

Since the USA is a representative democracy, the "Divine Right of
Politicians" is lunatic fringe rhetoric.

How else would they get the right to make "laws," a right no one else has?

It's called a Republic or representative democracy.


<inane rhetoric from the lunatic fringe snipped>

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "Divine Right of Politicians", Simple: the belief that politicians have some sort of god-given right to command obedience to their wishes that we mere mortals do not. Since the USA is a representative democracy,

The United States is officially (according to its founding
document) NOT a democracy, and guarantees the states a REPUBLICAN
form of "government."

How else would they get the right to make "laws," a right no one else has? It's called a Republic or representative democracy.

How (even in a Republic or democracy) do politicians get
rights no one else has?

Notice I'm not asking what you call your "system." I'm asking
a specific procedural question: HOW (i.e., by what process)
do some people (i.e., politicians) get rights that NO ONE ELSE
has, unless it is by divine intervention?

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

> I don't know what you mean by "Divine Right of Politicians", Simple: the belief that politicians have some sort of god-given right to command obedience to their wishes that we mere mortals do not. Since the USA is a representative democracy,

The United States is officially (according to its founding document) NOT a democracy, and guarantees the states a REPUBLICAN form of "government."

The guarantee to the states of a "republican form of government" is that
the govt will be derived from the great body of society (the People) as
opposed to some special class of nobility. See Fed Papers No. 39.
This "republican form of government" can either be a direct form (pure
democracy) or an indirect form (republic-representative democracy). See
Fed Papers No. 10.
IOW, all republics are democracies (rule by the People), but not all
democracies are republics.

How else would they get the right to make "laws," a right no one else has? It's called a Republic or representative democracy.

How (even in a Republic or democracy) do politicians get rights no one else has?

They don't get "rights" no one else has.
Everyone has a "right" to make law and try to enforce it.
(notice that I am using oinkymalloy's little "quote" crappola to
indicate fantasy)

Notice I'm not asking what you call your "system." I'm asking a specific procedural question: HOW (i.e., by what process) do some people (i.e., politicians) get rights that NO ONE ELSE has, unless it is by divine intervention?

"Divine right" is a concept that must be defended just like any other right.
Rights have always come into existence via consent.

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

> How else would they get> the right to make "laws," a right no one else has? It's called a Republic or representative democracy. How (even in a Republic or democracy) do politicians get rights no one else has? They don't get "rights" no one else has.

Then either everyone has the right to make "laws," or politicians
don't have the right to make "laws." Which is it, ed?

Everyone has a "right" to make law and try to enforce it.

Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,
have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them
against everyone else?

How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote: Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT, have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them against everyone else? How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?

That IS anarchy, you dolt.

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT, have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them against everyone else? How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy? That IS anarchy, you dolt.

Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years.
You finally get it.

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT, have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them against everyone else? How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy? That IS anarchy, you dolt.

Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years. You finally get it.

No, oinkymalloy - I got it a long time ago. So did a lot of people.
The problem is that you can't seem to move beyond semantics into ideas.
The issue has always been quality of life.
(In anarchy, you wouldn't be getting that govt check that gives you the
time to waste on the internet.)

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

>>>>>> Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,>>>>>> have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them>>>>>> against everyone else?>>>>>> How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?>>>>> That IS anarchy, you dolt.>>>> Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years.>>>> You finally get it.>>> No, oinkymalloy ->> Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years that>> anarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over.>> You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago.> Getting the definition does not mean "anarchy exists", you dolt. I'll believe anarchy exists when I see a wolf pack without an alpha wolf. ed proved anarchy exists. It's not a matter of belief: a) Everyone uses his own best judgment to determine right and wrong - ed agrees. b) Each person has the right to make laws and enforce them, ed said. No, oinkymalloy, I said: Each person has a "right" to make laws and TRY to enforce them.

To have the right to TRY to enforce them isn't the same thing
as the right to enforce them?

c) 6,000,000,000 individuals, each one making and enforcing his own laws on others is anarchy, ed agrees. If a is reality, and b is reality, and c is reality, and a + b + c = anarchy, then reality = anarchy. b and c ain't reality

You agreed that c) 6,000,000,000 individuals, each one making and
enforcing his own laws on others is anarchy:

esenter wrote:

Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT, have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them against everyone else? How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy? That IS anarchy, you dolt. --ed senter, 3/30/2005 8:29 AM

Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that. Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.

1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him.

2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights,

3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has
the same rights?

ed senter wants me to believe he doesn't have the right to act
as an individual because he formed a social compact (with person
or persons unkown) and surrendered that right. No matter how
loony that makes ed sound, I won't buy it.

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that. Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.

1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him. 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights, 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has the same rights?

In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual action,
you dolt. ie, one does not get to enforce his own rules!

ed senter wants me to believe he doesn't have the right to act as an individual because he formed a social compact (with person or persons unkown) and surrendered that right. No matter how loony that makes ed sound, I won't buy it.

I don't give a **** what you want, oinkymalloy. You are intellectually
devoid.

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that. Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their right to individual action sure improves the quality of life. 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him. 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights, 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has the same rights? In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual action,

How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action
by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and
yet everyone still has the SAME rights?

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

>> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.>> Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their> right to individual action sure improves the quality of life. 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him. 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights, 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has the same rights? In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual action,

How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and yet everyone still has the SAME rights?

Because everyone else has surrendered THEIR right to individual action,
also - ie, no individual has the right to enforce their own rules.

Are you serious, oinkymalloy, or are you just seriously stupid???

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

>>> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.>> Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their>> right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.> 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him.> 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights,> 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has> the same rights? In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual action, How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and yet everyone still has the SAME rights? Because everyone else has surrendered THEIR right to individual action,

How can YOU surrender OTHER PEOPLE'S rights for them???

also - ie, no individual has the right to enforce their own rules.

You said we did:

"Everyone has a 'right' to make law and try to enforce it."
--ed senter, 3/29/2005 6:32 PM

--XCobraJock


http://nogov4me.net/quiz.htm

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

>>>> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.>>>>>> Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their>>> right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.>>>> 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him.>> 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights,>> 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has>> the same rights?>> In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual> action, How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and yet everyone still has the SAME rights? Because everyone else has surrendered THEIR right to individual action,

How can YOU surrender OTHER PEOPLE'S rights for them???

I can't. Each individual surrenders his OWN right to individual action.

also - ie, no individual has the right to enforce their own rules.

You said we did: "Everyone has a 'right' to make law and try to enforce it." --ed senter, 3/29/2005 6:32 PM

And each individual surrenders that "right" by joining the social compact.


http://nogov4me.net/no reason

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

>>>>> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.>>>> Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their>>>> right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.>>> 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him.>>> 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights,>>> 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has>>> the same rights?>> In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual>> action,> How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action> by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and> yet everyone still has the SAME rights? Because everyone else has surrendered THEIR right to individual action, How can YOU surrender OTHER PEOPLE'S rights for them??? I can't.

That's right. Therefore, only each individual could possibly
TRY to surrender his right.

Each individual surrenders his OWN right to individual action.

Except that if you did that and I didn't, you and I would wind up
with different rights, and I don't believe in different rights for
different people.

also - ie, no individual has the right to enforce their own rules. You said we did: "Everyone has a 'right' to make law and try to enforce it." --ed senter, 3/29/2005 6:32 PM And each individual surrenders that "right" by joining the social compact.

Even if such a thing were possible (it isn't), only the individual
surrendering his own rights would lose them. No one else.

http://nogov4me.net/quiz.htm

--XCobraJock

[esenter]

XCobraJock wrote:

esenter wrote:

>>>>>> Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.>>>>>>>>>> Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders>>>>> their right to individual action sure improves the quality of life.>>>>>>>> 1) You can't surrender someone ELSE's rights for him.>>>> 2) If you think you can surrender YOUR OWN rights,>>>> 3) How can one surrender his own rights, and yet everyone still has>>>> the same rights?>>>>>> In a social compact, one ONLY surrenders his right to individual>>> action,>>>> How can YOU surrender YOUR OWN right to individual action>> by concocting a "social compact" (whatever THAT is), and>> yet everyone still has the SAME rights?>> Because everyone else has surrendered THEIR right to individual action, How can YOU surrender OTHER PEOPLE'S rights for them??? I can't.

That's right. Therefore, only each individual could possibly TRY to surrender his right. Each individual surrenders his OWN right to individual action. Except that if you did that and I didn't, you and I would wind up with different rights, and I don't believe in different rights for different people.

What you believe is irrelevant.

Real world example: Hospitals can not refuse emergency treatment for
illegal aliens. And public elementary/secondary schools will not
question citizenship for whatever reason. But, a very good student
recently won a scholarship to a public university; however, she had to
give it up because she was born in Mexico and was in the U.S. illegally.

> also - ie, no individual has the right to enforce their own rules. You said we did: "Everyone has a 'right' to make law and try to enforce it." --ed senter, 3/29/2005 6:32 PM And each individual surrenders that "right" by joining the social compact.

Even if such a thing were possible (it isn't), only the individual surrendering his own rights would lose them. No one else.

Yeah, right...if you enter any area under the jurisdiction of the USA,
you have surrendered your right to individual action by implied consent.

Another real world example: The Indian nations are a conquered peoples.
The U.S. Govt created reservations whereby Indians can choose to be
either an American or remain on the reservation. And even if they
remain on the reservation, they will be under tribal law.

So your "self-governing" fantasy is bull****, oinkymalloy.

[XCobraJock]

esenter wrote:

What you believe is irrelevant.

It's all that matters to me.

--XCobraJock

[Gray Shockley]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:34:46 -0500, XCobraJock wrote

esenter wrote:

What you believe is irrelevant.

It's all that matters to me. --XCobraJock

I'm sure you feel that way.

-- NoCutesyFalsie