Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Brill Weave]

Can someone tell me what a nubian is?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Or if you aren't retarded and realize he's preaching universal positives that are in direct contradiction to human nature aka fantasy aka utopia.

It's not even close to "things will be better off"

Fucking hippies man, I swear.

Break it down for me. I'm just not seeing it.

[Rothbardian]

Or if you aren't retarded and realize he's preaching universal positives that are in direct contradiction to human nature aka fantasy aka utopia.

It's not even close to "things will be better off"

Fucking hippies man, I swear.

There's no such thing as utopia, but if you think you are witty, or smart, or just trying to marginalize by throwing Ad Hominems out instead of debating the principles, well, you'll be talking to the wind because I refuse to debate with intellectually dishonest people.

Libertarianism is founded in human nature. I would advise you to read a little. Start with the School of Salamanca and then work your way up through Classical Liberalism, and then to Austrian Economics. I mean, Ludwig Von Mises didn't write a treatise called HUMAN ACTION, for no reason, without any understanding of human nature and the laws of economics.....

Anyone who believes in utopia in a world of scarce resources, like socialists (or central economic planners), should be immediately discredited by this law.

[BerenTebogo]

There is no such thing as utopia in the same way that there is no possible practical implementation of your ideals and values for society. It's not that you refuse to debate me it's that you literally cannot.

Your course of action requires a drastic change to the entirety of humankind and I am saying to you, "how do you propose to change ideals of at least 5.5 billion people?" See, I'm giving you 500 million people willing to immediately convert to your ideals and you still will have absolutely zero factual or practical response since it is a universal impracticality.

You're trying to convert me to your way of thinking because you cannot refute the point that changing human nature isn't a possibility in this day and age and to admit this fact would be to basically say that you're preaching fairy tales.

tl;dr? You're wrong and your ideals are childish fantasies.

[BerenTebogo]

I'm done. This thread needs more cartman and less "I'm in my first year of college and I had a philosophy teacher who really inspired me so I'm going to post it all on BG!"

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...manhippies.jpg

Fucking POL maintenance...

[Rothbardian]

Ok, I'll play a bit here. So Rothbardian, how exactly would you fix all of these issues you're so kindly bringing to light?

What issues are you talking about? Poverty? Crime (Only moral abridgements (violations of Natural Law, NAP, etc.) -- destruction of property, violation of contract law, theft, fraud, murder, assaults, etc.)? Be specific.

In any event, to answer the question as broadly as can be, read all of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block's work along with the Anti-Federalist papers to get a good starting point, then you can work your way back to Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, etc.

The answers are there for you to find.

[Sirrus_Asura]

There is no such thing as utopia in the same way that there is no possible practical implementation of your ideals and values for society. It's not that you refuse to debate me it's that you literally cannot.

Your course of action requires a drastic change to the entirety of humankind and I am saying to you, "how do you propose to change ideals of at least 5.5 billion people?" See, I'm giving you 500 million people willing to immediately convert to your ideals and you still will have absolutely zero factual or practical response since it is a universal impracticality.

You're trying to convert me to your way of thinking because you cannot refute the point that changing human nature isn't a possibility in this day and age and to admit this fact would be to basically say that you're preaching fairy tales.

tl;dr? You're wrong and your ideals are childish fantasies.

I'm a bit late to the thread, but what have you presented for anyone to debate? All I've seen from you is "Human nature sux" and "Ur ideas suck".

[BerenTebogo]

He says "My ideas can be implemented" "I say no they can't, and if they can, how?" he says "read more lol"

Can't really get a debate going if he won't even throw out how he believes he can change the way that humans all over the world think.

Edit: See? RIGHT ABOVE! His answer to everything is basically "Read this chapter in this book my philosophy teacher had me read lol" He can't even bring the ideas to us he has to task us to go read up on the ideas of other people as his argument.

[Sirrus_Asura]

I'm done. This thread needs more cartman and less "I'm in my first year of college and I had a philosophy teacher who really inspired me so I'm going to post it all on BG!"

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...manhippies.jpg

Fucking POL maintenance...

A little less "I win u loose, cause people do some bad things" wouldn't hurt either.

[Sirrus_Asura]

He says "My ideas can be implemented" "I say no they can't, and if they can, how?" he says "read more lol"

Can't really get a debate going if he won't even throw out how he believes he can change the way that humans all over the world think.

What is it about the way humans think that wont make anarchy work again?

[Rothbardian]

There is no such thing as utopia in the same way that there is no possible practical implementation of your ideals and values for society. It's not that you refuse to debate me it's that you literally cannot.

Your course of action requires a drastic change to the entirety of humankind and I am saying to you, "how do you propose to change ideals of at least 5.5 billion people?" See, I'm giving you 500 million people willing to immediately convert to your ideals and you still will have absolutely zero factual or practical response since it is a universal impracticality.

You're trying to convert me to your way of thinking because you cannot refute the point that changing human nature isn't a possibility in this day and age and to admit this fact would be to basically say that you're preaching fairy tales.

tl;dr? You're wrong and your ideals are childish fantasies.

I'm not trying to change the world. I'm trying to change this country. We all ready have the foundation in our tradition, a return to those principles as espoused in the Declaration of Independance would be a great start, and one that many Americans connect to, because it is indeed -- self-evident truths and axioms.

[BerenTebogo]

How many people are in prison all around the world? Take that total number and that's how many reasons you have that anarchy won't work.

At best you create two parallel societies, one which everyone works together and one where everyone hates the first society. At worst you create a prison institution which has to be run by someone in a fashion that isn't just arbitrary which requires something aside from anarchy.

[Sirrus_Asura]

How many people are in prison all around the world? Take that total number and that's how many reasons you have that anarchy won't work.

Bad people isn't a good argument against anarchy.

[Deftscythe]

Can someone tell me what a nubian is?

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/attac...1&d=1259007321

[BerenTebogo]

Bad people isn't a good argument against anarchy.

Because you say so? It's a perfectly logical argument against anarchy. Bad people are huge reason that democracy doesn't even work.

People diverging from the societal norms have caused the vast majority of problems for all of human kind since the origins of society. Saying that they're not a good reason that anarchy can't work is just plain idiotic.

[BerenTebogo]

In fact, I'm going to double post here, if "bad people" didn't exist then we wouldn't even be having this argument would we? Even the discrepancies between what people view as right and wrong are enough to tear a country in half. I cannot wrap my head around how you don't understand that if people don't conform to the ideal that we're all working towards the benefit of society a problem is going to arise.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Because you say so? It's a perfectly logical argument against anarchy. Bad people are huge reason that democracy doesn't even work.

People diverging from the societal norms have caused the vast majority of problems for all of human kind since the origins of society. Saying that they're not a good reason that anarchy can't work is just plain idiotic.

Bad people can fuck up alot more shit when there is a government then when there isn't.

Thats why "Bad" people isn't a good argument against anarchy.

[BerenTebogo]

Examples? Allusion? Anything other than something you pulled out of your ass?

[Rothbardian]

He says "My ideas can be implemented" "I say no they can't, and if they can, how?" he says "read more lol"

Can't really get a debate going if he won't even throw out how he believes he can change the way that humans all over the world think.

Edit: See? RIGHT ABOVE! His answer to everything is basically "Read this chapter in this book my philosophy teacher had me read lol" He can't even bring the ideas to us he has to task us to go read up on the ideas of other people as his argument.

Actually, I'm in the Coast Guard, and plan to get out when I finish my tour. I really started to read about two and a half years ago right after I joined and changed my view point from a more paleo-conservative with strong libertarian leanings (Admiration for Goldwater/Taft), to a staunch libertarian anarcho-capitalist after finally understanding economics and human interactions...what you call human nature.

What do you think human nature is? You seem to think we are a naturally violent species and without the State we would devolve and annihilate each other. If indeed, this is the correct assertion then we would not be around today, because we would have killed ourselves off in our early years. This did not happen, and it did not happen for a reason. People do not generally kill each other for arbitrary reasons, and those who do are a malignant minority and it is understood that criminality will always exist, this formulated by Salamanca as the consequence of free will.

Secondly, you are very derisive. You dismiss without debate. The foundation for Government was rooted in philosophy, and is why we used to have people called -- Statesman -- who conducted their affairs in politics, now all we have are corrupt politicians with no principles, no values, and no philosophy save for a select few.

You want to know how to change course? Education, Agorism, Activism, Civil Disobedience, documentation of grievances, Electoral Victories by people like Adam Kokesh and RJ Harris, etc. Specific policies I have directed you towards. It would take far too long to try and condense thousands and thousands of pages into short quick summations. You summarily dismiss anyways, because you don't have the knowledge of history, and of economic law. That's ok, neither did I a few years ago. I've read Marx, Keynes, Hamilton, Mercantilist schools of thought, Neo-Classical thought, etc. I've done this on my own because it is in my best interest to be involved, like it's been said, even if you don't want to do politics, politics will do you.

PS: I know it's hard to believe....people actually educating themselves! Wow, I didn't know humans had such capacity [emphasis mine].

[Sirrus_Asura]

Examples? Allusion? Anything other than something you pulled out of your ass?

Of course.

I just wanted to make sure I had your interest.

Just gonna repost it from the other thread.

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and dickwad people in the world:

1. That all men are good
2. That all men are dickwads
3. That the majority of men are good, and a minority dickwads
4. That the majority of men are dickwads, and a minority good

A. In the first case, (all men are good), the State is obviously unnecessary, since dickwadery does not exist. (Dream on)

B. In the second case, (all men are dickwads), the State cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The State, it is generally argued, must exist because there are dickwads in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of State retribution (police). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more dickwadery they will do. However, the State itself is not subject to any force, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen, politicians and dickwads go to jail? Thus if dicks wish to do harm but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a State to exist, because dickheads will immediately take control of that State, in order to be assholes and avoid retribution. In a society of pure dick, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the douchebag intents of disparate groups.


C. The third possibility is that most people are dicks, and only a few are not. If this is the case, then the State also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the State will be a bunch of dicks, and will rule over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted to exist, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic will of the douchebag majority. Dickwads, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably take control of the State, and use its power to do their evil free of that fear.


D. The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are fuckers. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that douchebags will always want to gain control over the State, in order to shield themselves from retaliation. This option changes the appearance of democracy, of course: because the majority of people are good, doucher power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills with the police and military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the State remains the greatest prize to the most evil of dickwads, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – to the detriment of all good souls– and so the State cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.