Has anyone ever changed their mind because of this forum?

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dahunan
I like politicians even less and less.. but I hated them before this forum... Now I just dislike their supporters as much as them..

I honestly never realized how humans can turn into sheeple and cows so easily..

I've wondered the same thing. This book may be able to give some insight.

Also, I believe that people have been turned into sheeple so easily because they actually believe that the government has allowed them to escape the human condition of having to make subjective moral decisions. However, on the same token many people rabidly disagree with many of the things the government does. When this occurs they fall back on their belief in absolute governmental authority (see above) (i.e. even though they disagree with what the government does, they believe that they still must obey its edicts and support it financially).

This mental condition of not believing in the government's actions but still believing that one must go along with them is one of the most bizarre and most pervasive conundrums I have ever witnessed.

I was arguing with a guy in a chat room one time who was complaining about property taxes. I asked if he thought that he ought to still pay them and instead of saying no, he said yes. I asked him why he thought that he ought to pay taxes that he doesn't agree with, and he referred to the "rule of law."

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

This is just one example of the massive and pervasive political delusions people for thousands of years and today suffer from.

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

OMFG, an absolute perfect description of the Republicans.

Especially how they throw the "immoral" word around so much.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dahunan
I like politicians even less and less.. but I hated them before this forum... Now I just dislike their supporters as much as them..

I honestly never realized how humans can turn into sheeple and cows so easily..

I've wondered the same thing. This book may be able to give some insight.

Also, I believe that people have been turned into sheeple so easily because they actually believe that the government has allowed them to escape the human condition of having to make subjective moral decisions. However, on the same token many people rabidly disagree with many of the things the government does. When this occurs they fall back on their belief in absolute governmental authority (see above) (i.e. even though they disagree with what the government does, they believe that they still must obey its edicts and support it financially).

This mental condition of not believing in the government's actions but still believing that one must go along with them is one of the most bizarre and most pervasive conundrums I have ever witnessed.

I was arguing with a guy in a chat room one time who was complaining about property taxes. I asked if he thought that he ought to still pay them and instead of saying no, he said yes. I asked him why he thought that he ought to pay taxes that he doesn't agree with, and he referred to the "rule of law."

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

This is just one example of the massive and pervasive political delusions people for thousands of years and today suffer from.

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

OMFG, an absolute perfect description of the Republicans.

Especially how they throw the "immoral" word around so much.

Another example of political delusions: belief in a denomination or sect within politics. This entails rejecting the principles of all other denominations/sects and faithfully following your denomination/sect no matter how much in practice it reflects the actions of the other denominations/sects. This leads people to believe that politicians actually argue over real "principles." That is a mere masquerade. What they really do is just squabble over who is going to get the most of the private property they have expropriated.

I used to believe in the Libertarian Party, until I realized that if the Libertarian Party took power it would be the Republican or Democratic party of the future.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dahunan
I like politicians even less and less.. but I hated them before this forum... Now I just dislike their supporters as much as them..

I honestly never realized how humans can turn into sheeple and cows so easily..

I've wondered the same thing. This book may be able to give some insight.

Also, I believe that people have been turned into sheeple so easily because they actually believe that the government has allowed them to escape the human condition of having to make subjective moral decisions. However, on the same token many people rabidly disagree with many of the things the government does. When this occurs they fall back on their belief in absolute governmental authority (see above) (i.e. even though they disagree with what the government does, they believe that they still must obey its edicts and support it financially).

This mental condition of not believing in the government's actions but still believing that one must go along with them is one of the most bizarre and most pervasive conundrums I have ever witnessed.

I was arguing with a guy in a chat room one time who was complaining about property taxes. I asked if he thought that he ought to still pay them and instead of saying no, he said yes. I asked him why he thought that he ought to pay taxes that he doesn't agree with, and he referred to the "rule of law."

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

This is just one example of the massive and pervasive political delusions people for thousands of years and today suffer from.

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

OMFG, an absolute perfect description of the Republicans.

Especially how they throw the "immoral" word around so much.

Another example of political delusions: belief in a denomination or sect within politics. This entails rejecting the principles of all other denominations/sects and faithfully following your denomination/sect no matter how much in practice it reflects the actions of the other denominations/sects. This leads people to believe that politicians actually argue over real "principles." That is a mere masquerade. What they really do is just squabble over who is going to get the most of the private property they have expropriated.

I used to believe in the Libertarian Party, until I realized that if the Libertarian Party took power it would be the Republican or Democratic party of the future.

You talk about private property. You can't have private property without government. Don't tell me you are some Rousseau fan who actually believes in the noble savage or something like that. Natural law is outdated.

 

[BBond]

At one point I actually had hope for America. Reading some of the posts from members who continually defend anything and everything that's been done during the past four years has changed my mind about that.

 

[shimsham]

i used to think that most people could have an intelligent debate. but since its mostly become blue/red state, athiest/religious, liberal/conservative bullsh!t trash one-liners with people rarely addressing the issues and only working to show their "superiority" and put others down, i find myself thinking there is no point in trying to debate. people seem to have lost the ability to listen and try to understand one another; to view something honestly from the others point of view and reference. respect for others and opinions is a rarity.

there are some good posts and debates here, for sure. its just that most of the time its not worth it to dig through the trash to find them.

so yes, this forum has changed my mind in the sense that people on both sides are petty and close-minded more than i ever imagined. its probably always been that way, and i was just naive to it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I've changed my mind on certain circumstances. For example, I used to think that some people here were normal, but now I think they're crazy or extremists.

I think I've also learned that between the 'left' and the 'right', the part that I associate more with (the left) is more crazy and annoying than the right on these forums.

 

[HombrePequeno]

On occasion I've changed my views on issues. I wouldn't say the changes are a complete 180 degree position from where I was previously. But when the more intelligent, insightful posters post something good, I'll generally re-evaluate my position on that issue. Unfortunately those intelligent, insightful posters are in the extreme minority.

 

[CrimsonChaos]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
For example, I used to think that some people here were normal, but now I think they're crazy or extremists.

:laugh:

 

[CanOWorms]

I met my one true love in P&N.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I met my one true love in P&N.

You promised you wouldn't tell!

:|

 

[CQuinn]

I used to be a moderate, now I'm more of a centrist.

Thanks, P &N!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dahunan
I like politicians even less and less.. but I hated them before this forum... Now I just dislike their supporters as much as them..

I honestly never realized how humans can turn into sheeple and cows so easily..

I've wondered the same thing. This book may be able to give some insight.

Also, I believe that people have been turned into sheeple so easily because they actually believe that the government has allowed them to escape the human condition of having to make subjective moral decisions. However, on the same token many people rabidly disagree with many of the things the government does. When this occurs they fall back on their belief in absolute governmental authority (see above) (i.e. even though they disagree with what the government does, they believe that they still must obey its edicts and support it financially).

This mental condition of not believing in the government's actions but still believing that one must go along with them is one of the most bizarre and most pervasive conundrums I have ever witnessed.

I was arguing with a guy in a chat room one time who was complaining about property taxes. I asked if he thought that he ought to still pay them and instead of saying no, he said yes. I asked him why he thought that he ought to pay taxes that he doesn't agree with, and he referred to the "rule of law."

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

This is just one example of the massive and pervasive political delusions people for thousands of years and today suffer from.

What he was implying was that the "rule of law" is an objective and absolute expression of the "will of the people," and disobeying it would be immoral.

OMFG, an absolute perfect description of the Republicans.

Especially how they throw the "immoral" word around so much.

Another example of political delusions: belief in a denomination or sect within politics. This entails rejecting the principles of all other denominations/sects and faithfully following your denomination/sect no matter how much in practice it reflects the actions of the other denominations/sects. This leads people to believe that politicians actually argue over real "principles." That is a mere masquerade. What they really do is just squabble over who is going to get the most of the private property they have expropriated.

I used to believe in the Libertarian Party, until I realized that if the Libertarian Party took power it would be the Republican or Democratic party of the future.

You talk about private property. You can't have private property without government. Don't tell me you are some Rousseau fan who actually believes in the noble savage or something like that. Natural law is outdated.

Rousseau fan? Far from the truth. Rousseau was a confused philosopher who thought that democracy would be a boon to freedom. Empircally it has had the exact opposite effect.

You can't have private property without government.

Your statement is easily refuted. In order for government to exist, it has to expropriate private property (unless those who work in it, work for free, which would never happen), therefore, in order for it to have come into existence, it had to expropriate private property from someone who had it prior to its existence.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your statement is easily refuted. In order for government to exist, it has to expropriate private property (unless those who work in it, work for free, which would never happen), therefore, in order for it to have come into existence, it had to expropriate private property from someone who had it prior to its existence.

Your argument assumes something that is in question. It's really just circular. I hope you can see that.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Your statement is easily refuted. In order for government to exist, it has to expropriate private property (unless those who work in it, work for free, which would never happen), therefore, in order for it to have come into existence, it had to expropriate private property from someone who had it prior to its existence.

Your argument assumes something that is in question. It's really just circular. I hope you can see that.

Please share your incredible insight as to how it is circular.

Actually, empirically speaking, a modern day example of private property existing without government is Somalia. There is no official "government" there, and yet there is still an economy, including a system for solving disputes.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Please share your incredible insight as to how it is circular.

Description: An argument that assumes as part of its premises the very conclusion that is supposed to be true. Another way of saying this is: Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an argument the very point you are trying to prove. The fallacy is also sometimes referred to as "Circulus in Probando." This Fallacy is also known by the Latin "PETITIO PRINCIPII".

You set out to show that private property can exist without government. As support for this, you used an argument that implicitly assumes that private property can exist without government.

Actually, empirically speaking, a modern day example of private property existing without government is Somalia. There is no official "government" there, and yet there is still an economy, including a system for solving disputes.

Who said a government has to be official? Also, I don't dispute there can be economy without government. I dispute that there can be private property without government. It depends on what your definition of private property is really. For me private property is property you have some legal right in.

 

[Martin]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1556091&enterthread=y

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Who said a government has to be official? Also, I don't dispute there can be economy without government. I dispute that there can be private property without government. It depends on what your definition of private property is really. For me private property is property you have some legal right in.

Without government, ALL property is private by default. What else could it be? You can argue that you need the government to protect your property, not that your property is not private.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Without government, ALL property is private by default. What else could it be?

Land. Just land.

Anyway, I'm discussing this with dissipate. I'm not really interested in discussing this particular topic with you so this will be my last post to you in this thread. Dissipate is welcome to use your arguments though.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Please share your incredible insight as to how it is circular.

Description: An argument that assumes as part of its premises the very conclusion that is supposed to be true. Another way of saying this is: Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an argument the very point you are trying to prove. The fallacy is also sometimes referred to as "Circulus in Probando." This Fallacy is also known by the Latin "PETITIO PRINCIPII".

You set out to show that private property can exist without government. As support for this, you used an argument that implicitly assumes that private property can exist without government.

No, my argument was simply that creation of government cannot precede the existence of private property. Hence, it is actually the other way around. By saying that private property cannot exist without government, is to imply that there was no private property before government.

Actually, empirically speaking, a modern day example of private property existing without government is Somalia. There is no official "government" there, and yet there is still an economy, including a system for solving disputes.

Who said a government has to be official?

A government is a monopoly of coercion over a given geographic region. In the sense that it remains a monopoly, it is "official," at least to those who it rules.

Also, I don't dispute there can be economy without government. I dispute that there can be private property without government.

What the heck? Your statements contradict each other right off the bat. There cannot be any economy without private property.

It depends on what your definition of private property is really. For me private property is property you have some legal right in.

I am assuming that you are referring to "legal rights" bestowed upon you by "government." In other words, you believe that in order for you to own anything you have to go into a voting booth and anonymously punch holes in a card, or have other people anonymously punch holes in a card, and "elect" some politician who will create some bureaucracy which will eventually tell you that you own something that you thought you owned in the first place. Hmm, interesting concept of private property.

 

[imported_Condor]

Yeah, I used to doubt libs. Now I know that was a moderate stance!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Condor
Yeah, I used to doubt libs. Now I know that was a moderate stance!

LOL

I lean liberal, but the extremist Liberals on this forum sometimes make me feel that I should be conservative. I have to fight that feeling off!

Maybe I'm just more annoyed by people that somewhat share similar ideology.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Land. Just land.

Anyway, I'm discussing this with dissipate. I'm not really interested in discussing this particular topic with you so this will be my last post to you in this thread. Dissipate is welcome to use your arguments though.

Wow. Sorry, your majesty, I didn't realize you were so important as to pick and choose who you argued with. Usually we can't get you to shut up, now you're dismissing me? :laugh:

 

[Schrodinger]

I've gone to the right moreso on some issues (abortion, guns) while I've gone to the left on others (death penalty)

There wasn't a paricular thread that did it. It just so happened that my political ideas and opinions matured while lurking these forums.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, my argument was simply that creation of government cannot precede the existence of private property.

I know that was your argument. When I talked about circular reasoning I was addressing your support for that argument.

By saying that private property cannot exist without government, is to imply that there was no private property before government.[/b]
Okay.

A government is a monopoly of coercion over a given geographic region. In the sense that it remains a monopoly, it is "official," at least to those who it rules.
Okay, are you sure there's no "monopoly of coercion" in Ethiopia? You don't think certain leaders or certain groups have a monopoly? ANd I don't like your definition because frequently governments do not have a monopoly over coercion. Take the case of rebels. Did the US government disappear when McVeigh used coercion in OKC?

What the heck? Your statements contradict each other right off the bat. There cannot be any economy without private property.

I think there can be an economy with property (sans the "private").

I am assuming that you are referring to "legal rights" bestowed upon you by "government." In other words, you believe that in order for you to own anything you have to go into a voting booth and anonymously punch holes in a card, or have other people anonymously punch holes in a card, and "elect" some politician who will create some bureaucracy which will eventually tell you that you own something that you thought you owned in the first place. Hmm, interesting concept of private property.

I'm saying private property is a social construct that requires a sovereign to enforce it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Land. Just land.

Anyway, I'm discussing this with dissipate. I'm not really interested in discussing this particular topic with you so this will be my last post to you in this thread. Dissipate is welcome to use your arguments though.

Wow. Sorry, your majesty, I didn't realize you were so important as to pick and choose who you argued with. Usually we can't get you to shut up, now you're dismissing me? :laugh:

I've noticed that he often tries to back or run away from many different arguments.

Don't take it too hard - it seems to be a fairly common thing.