Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Blogs > Anenome

  1. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Does a COLA law society force laws on people? or, refuting Venom's silly hypocrisy

    (part 2)

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anenome
    Even if you wander onto X property, the owner cannot enforce his rules on you unless you agree to them. If you refuse to agree, the most he can do is use enough force to make you leave his property and no more.
    Again, this isn't about the property owner or the trespasser -- it's about someone that isn't the property owner creating parameters for which they must act within on their own property without consent to such parameters. You claim that you do not like being told what to do on your property today, but it appears that you're telling people what they can do on their property in your theory.
    Firstly, the rule that laws don't apply to you unless you agree in advance would be a fundamental rule of the COLA system itself. Why? Because I highly doubt anyone would be part of a COLA that didn't have that rule.

    So I'm assuming the owner of property X is part of a COLA system in the first place. That's what we're talking about, right? Pretty sure that was the topic of this thread in the main.

    I'm not forcing that on anyone, it's a founding assumption of the COLA network. I'm not speaking to anything outside the COLA system. And if the trespasser is a COLA member too, then he faces the same restriction.

    So I'm not in fact telling them anything. I'm suggesting this is what people will be broadly willing to agree to, since it is self-evidently just.

    Law in a private law scenario is only formed by voluntary contract between two people. It cannot become law until an agreement between two people has been made. Someone can say "this is law for my property" but until a 3rd party wants to visit, it's really just a blank rule, since the person owning the property is unlikely to prosecute himself for violating his own rule.

    I suppose it could happen but that would be more hilarious than demonstrative.

    The second someone signs the agreement and visits the property we have private law in existence, since an X can now hold a Y responsible in a court.

    So again, I'm not forcing the law of proportionality on anyone but suggesting that the only contract people would be willing to sign in a voluntary law context is one in which both parties to the contract agree it's a fair contract, which very likely means that proportionality will be a rule rather than an exception.

    If X property owner isn't part of any legal agreements whatsoever, not even COLA agreements, and he shoots a trespasser, then we're back to dealing with people by force, not law. He will likely face invasion as an outlaw so he doesn't shoot anyone else, since it strikes most people as extremely unjust to murder people for trespassing.

    Would it be wrong to hold a murderer accountable for murder even if they're not a part of your legal order? Of course it would not be. Will Benom attack this as "forcing your laws on people?" I certainly hope so, since it shows how laughably out of touch with the philosophy of ethics he is.

    And if X property owner is part of any COLA contracts at all, which is extremely likely since people like to, you know, buy things from others, go shopping, leave their home, etc.,--all such contracts will require a guarantee of certain basic rights.

    How can I say that? Will Venom accuse me of forcing laws on people? How can I say all such contracts WILL require--am I forcing my will on them again? Of course not. Again, I assume it as a basic rule that is so obvious that I doubt anyone would be part of a contract that didn't feature it.

    It's like a one line statement to agree to grant people basic rights, and it is the founding basis of the concept I developed called contractual trigger provisions.

    This is what the foundational COLA contract is for, to both setup the COLA rules and ensure basic rights protections in the first place.

    If he's not part of some basic COLA then he's not contracting with anyone, AND most people aren't going to anywhere near him, because he's equivalent to an untrusted outlaw. Mothers will warn children not to go anywhere near the place, etc.

    You discount all of these easily understood factors, you have no critical faculty to even think about them, you have paraded your ignorance repeatedly, mocked an idea you don't understand, refused to learn anything about it, and pretended that your supposed fatal flaw assertion was some gotcha that had no answer.

    But in fact it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect all over again. As if basic political philosophy didn't have answers for these things since centuries ago.

    If you really want to learn something, put aside your irrational anger for a moment and actually watch this:



    He starts out by explaining the nature of conflict avoidance, the purpose of law, etc., that I basically reiterated in the beginning of this post. He states that he considers these things irrefutable. I do too. And you are unlikely to find any chinks in that armor.

    Naturally I don't expect either of you to change your minds, and I find that rather amusing considering how obvious the subject is. Hilarious that you attack leftists for things you are yourselves guilty of in comparison to the society I propose. Can't wait to read your responses and then watch you throw hissy fits when I ignore their inanity.

    Here's what they will be. Benom will nitpick some aspect of my statement here, ignore the main thrust of it (typical distractionary tactic in political debates), and I will continue ignoring him as before, since I've now answered this and similar questions a dozen times and he never learns, most fully in this comment. And he will attack the idea of ancap society with some problem that actually exists in much worse fashion in current society, even if ancap society may not be entirely perfect in that regard. But I maintain again that improvement is still better than nothing, and perfection may not be possible. Anyone rejecting improvement because it's not perfection is an irrational idealist who is ignoring reality. That kind of response of his is probably my favorite thing to read, it's like he doesn't even realize he's doing it! Dunning-Kruger triple-threat.

    Spectral will cheerlead Benom without any actual understanding of what either of us have said and without any substantive critique of his own. For god's sake, he wasn't even capable of a cut'n'paste summation of Benom's challenge a few posts ago.

    Meanwhile, I'll be getting on with things. I've been tapped to take over as general manager of a 5-million dollar company and am preparing a plan to double revenues in the next two years. And in my free time I continue helping to build an entirely new way of life that will improve the world immensely via seasteading, private decentralized law, and a new life on the high seas.

    And I'll let you guys know when the floathouse Kickstarter nears its launch. I will enjoy ignoring your QQs :P

    I think the worse things for you guys is being so adamantly wrong. That makes it all the harder to see the light, since now you have to revoke an opinion you doubled-down on with major doses of negativity.

    But you are wrong and remain wrong, and again, it's not my job to prove you right. Neither of you have read even a single article I posted here nor take a dispassionate analytical and philosophical approach to the issues raised. Which is sad, because it proves that at heart you're just trolls, and worse, unthinking and anti-intellectual trolls.
    Posted 03-22-2015 at 12:52 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Agnostic Pope's Avatar

    How Mass Effect 3 SHOULD Have Ended

    Except we got ME4 on the way with MOAR Starchild to fuck your face in. The ME universe as we knew it is dead. THANKS BIOWARE.
    Posted 11-13-2012 at 09:13 AM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Posted 02-17-2012 at 12:29 PM by sai tyrus sai tyrus is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Portugal Ends the War on Drugs

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inscribed
    "needs of the many" = tyranny of the majority,
    Too true. Let me tell you a little story...

    When the communists began to starve, the leader took the fat man and put him in the great pot and lit the fire. About that time, the fat man became disillusioned with communism and said, "Hey, fellas, come on now, I wanna get out of here!" The leader looked at him with disdain and said, "You who have had so much, how dare you complain. Think of all the people whose lives will be saved by your grand sacrifice. Do not wail, do not cry--instead boil in joy for the community will eat well tonight."

    Utilitarianism does not consider ethics, nor rights, and is therefore an evil philosophy. In the story above, it is used to justify murder, showing how morally bankrupt a philosophy it truly is. Only a philosophy based on basic, inalienable rights can be an ethical philosophy.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inscribed
    and should have no place in government law, even though it obviously does. Its basically a blank check to dismiss minority rights.
    Exactly. The "greatest good" argument has led to the greatest evils. Hitler too cast genetic purity as a "greatest good" argument, and Germany bought it.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inscribed
    The government shouldn't have any burden of supporting "losers" in the first place, as anenome points out. People make their own decisions and responsible for the repercussions of those decisions. I shouldn't have to pay out of my pocket for the government to babysit other people, which is basically what the "war on drugs" is all about.
    I don't think anyone should be forced to pay for policies they disagree with. That's one of the core concepts behind the government I'm putting together for Atlantis, that law is voluntarily subscribed to. Laws are limited to both those who agree to have that law over them and who pay for that law, they are unable to shift the cost of a law to those who don't agree with the law (basic rights excepted, meaning your right not to be murdered is an ethical right and valid for all people, but there's no ethical component to say welfare or health costs, and if you choose to enter a scheme to pay for it for everyone, you can do so only willingly. There can never be a political body that decides for the entire country, such as Congress recently did with Obama care).
    Posted 12-27-2011 at 12:36 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  5. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Portugal Ends the War on Drugs

    By Alexious:
    Quote:
    I usually try to stick to the game threads around here Evil, but I think one of the main points the OP was trying to make is that it is FAR more expensive to keep these people locked up than it is to pay for their treatment and recovery.

    Not that politicians, who get a boost to their poll numbers from voters AND large contributions from the corporations who run our prison system for being "tough on crime", are at all interested in changing the current system. One of the largest groups of people who are interested in change is law enforcement officers.
    Posted 12-27-2011 at 12:35 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  6. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Portugal Ends the War on Drugs

    By Inscribed:
    Quote:
    "needs of the many" = tyranny of the majority, and should have no place in government law, even though it obviously does. Its basically a blank check to dismiss minority rights.

    The government shouldn't have any burden of supporting "losers" in the first place, as anenome points out. People make their own decisions and responsible for the repercussions of those decisions. I shouldn't have to pay out of my pocket for the government to babysit other people, which is basically what the "war on drugs" is all about.
    Posted 12-27-2011 at 12:34 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  7. Old Comment
    sai tyrus's Avatar

    Real-Life is Becoming More like Call of Duty

    That would be fucked up. lol
    Posted 07-17-2011 at 03:12 AM by sai tyrus sai tyrus is offline
  8. Old Comment
    Posted 06-20-2011 at 01:42 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  9. Old Comment
    Agnostic Pope's Avatar

    How to have a conversation

    Feminists hate men until they need something from them. Whether it be sex, getting things done or company these "independent" women are a living contradiction. WOOOAH WE ARE HALFWAY THERE WOOOAHH LIVING ON A PRAYER. Goddamn RB3...it's the last time I play it for 3 hours straight.
    Posted 05-02-2011 at 10:15 PM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline
  10. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Some Photoshops I've Done

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the_evil_sword_girl View Comment
    The horse one... you shopped the horse into the snowy pic, and added a tongue, hm?
    Not quite, I got ya!

    The black pole is photoshopped in! And yes, the tongue is fake, but the horse is in there originally, in the snow at least. I'm pretty proud of the pole's shadow, really sells it :P
    Posted 04-10-2011 at 08:58 PM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  11. Old Comment
    the_evil_sword_girl's Avatar

    Some Photoshops I've Done

    The horse one... you shopped the horse into the snowy pic, and added a tongue, hm?
    Posted 04-10-2011 at 07:01 PM by the_evil_sword_girl the_evil_sword_girl is offline
  12. Old Comment
    Posted 02-27-2011 at 05:41 PM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline
  13. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    PUG Gaming

    I associate them with the lovely and talented Jessica Alba



    Posted 02-26-2011 at 08:23 PM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  14. Old Comment
    Agnostic Pope's Avatar

    PUG Gaming

    Do not shame that pug by associating him with the beaver! :P
    Posted 02-26-2011 at 05:24 PM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline
  15. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    PUG Gaming

    Kids love it, photobomber approved

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lockwoodx View Post
    That was good
    Posted 02-24-2011 at 02:06 PM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  16. Old Comment
    Mitorofu's Avatar

    PUG Gaming

    That Pug has impeccable taste in games.
    Posted 02-24-2011 at 11:34 AM by Mitorofu Mitorofu is offline
  17. Old Comment
    Agnostic Pope's Avatar

    Lockwoodx = The Biebz

    Make a rap detroit juggulo version for the real biebz.
    Posted 02-15-2011 at 01:22 AM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline
  18. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar

    Syndicate: EA's Secret Project

    Quote:
    "The FPS-game in question from Starbreeze will have 4-player co-op with crucial healing your squadmates when they are low on health and the ability to see through walls, and will not be XBLA but a disc game with full Xbox Live support." "
    http://forum.starbreeze.com/viewtopic.php?id=905
    Posted 02-13-2011 at 01:08 AM by Anenome Anenome is offline
  19. Old Comment
    Posted 01-03-2011 at 02:16 PM by Froggy Froggy is offline
  20. Old Comment
    Agnostic Pope's Avatar

    Froggy Sums Me Up ;)

    ...ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US!
    Posted 12-22-2010 at 08:58 PM by Agnostic Pope Agnostic Pope is offline

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM.