tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post142124021945911122..comments2022-05-20T21:44:50.161-07:00Comments on Common Sense Matters II: Here We Go AgainCWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-43966706550921784702013-12-12T09:03:13.389-08:002013-12-12T09:03:13.389-08:00The prior anarchist used to tell me that everyone ...The prior anarchist used to tell me that everyone wants freedom and the absence of gov’t equals freedom and is possible. My answer to him was that, in my experience, when people want something that’s possible to have, they get it; yet looking around the world and even back through history, there’s no such thing as people living in government-less bliss, so one or both of those statements must not be true. Yes, SOME people want freedom. But others want a nanny state. Others want to be in control. Those realities will ALWAYS lead to gov’t created by tyranny or gov’t created in the hopes of keeping tyranny at bay.<br /><br />I’ve tried to have a reasonable debate with you but you just become more shrill and hysterical with each post, a reaction, I’m sure, to having your most precious prejudices challenged, that being your fantasy that the world would be just great if you could eliminate gov’t. Instead of engaging in a rational debate, which anyone with confidence in their position would want to do, you resort to false arguments, name calling and the old standby: “But you voted for blah, blah, blah!” as if changing the subject and demanding that I explain what I’ve explained 20 times now is going to make this fundamental problem go away for you. Too bad, because I like a good debate and I can be persuaded by good arguments.<br /><br />I anticipate that you will ignore the substance of what I’ve said here and you’ll come back with the usual smack-talking and name calling. Been there, done that, so this is good-bye.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-49135460056081549522013-12-12T09:02:31.125-08:002013-12-12T09:02:31.125-08:00I’ll never understand why anarchists think that th...I’ll never understand why anarchists think that the same people who won’t be bound by the Constitution will instead submit to a “system” like the NAP, or forego their lawlessness in favor of leaving people to self-government. Talk about naïve.<br /><br />There’s going to be gov’t – period; THE END. One reason I know this is because the first thing you rabid anarchists do when proposing your “alternative” to gov’t is to start telling me what the new “rules” will be, according to YOU (although the last anarchist was careful to avoid the word “rules,” telling me instead that “encroachments would be prohibited.”) Once you acknowledge the FACT of gov’t (I remember you said you like to deal in facts) it changes the whole nature of this debate, which is precisely why you duck my SIMPLE questions about the NAP like a wary boxer trying to avoid a killer blow. You know that answering will lead to an admission that the NAP or anything else you propose is just another form of gov’t. Better to bury your head in the sand and pretend that reality does not exist.<br /><br />If gov’t is inevitable, which it is, then the question isn’t “IF gov’t?” it’s “WHAT gov’t?” The original framers of the Constitution – people who didn’t shy away from thinking on their own (i.e. not dependent on Lew Rockwell) and who didn’t avoid reality – sought to limit the power of gov’t by agreement (yes, those infamous “words on paper”). They fully understood it might not work, as it depends on a mature, informed populace that’s basically decent in character (i.e. not liberals). But once you have a majority that are determined to steal or tyrannize (or a minority coupled with a lazy, apathetic populace), nothing short of physical confrontation will stop them, whether it’s the Constitution or the NAP.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-35362723891814834782013-12-11T19:29:15.360-08:002013-12-11T19:29:15.360-08:00Communist Income Tax: Declared 'constitutiona...Communist Income Tax: Declared 'constitutional' per the 'framers' system.<br /><br />TSA: ditto<br /><br />Warrantless surveillance: ditto<br /><br />ACA: ditto<br /><br />I could go on and on and on...<br />KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-5594267184194968702013-12-09T13:45:56.655-08:002013-12-09T13:45:56.655-08:00I’m not really interested in a having a snarky fig...I’m not really interested in a having a snarky fight with you and I’m having trouble understanding what your purpose is here. If you simply want to vent your anger, you’ve done that already. Your anger, however unjustified I think it might be, is duly noted. If your purpose here is to try and persuade me to see things as you do, you have a very odd way of going about it, beginning with all the straw-man arguments. I don’t bring those up just because I want to play some silly game with you. If you have to misrepresent my argument or put words in my mouth in order to have this debate that should be a signal to you that something is amiss. No one who truly has a superior argument should ever need to resort to straw-men. <br /><br />You like to talk about logic and fallacies but then you ask a question like this: >>”How can you PROVE Gore/Kerry would've been worse than Bush and that McCain/Romney would've been less bad than Obama?”<br /><br />Your question is silly. It’s like asking two people to prove which of two cars is “best” without giving them a uniform set of measurements to go by. One person might like a fast car while another prefers a car for hauling big stuff. I don’t have to PROVE anything to you, nor do I have the kind of time it would take (nor will you ever accept my answer because our standards will be different). I’m entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. Subjective questions don’t necessarily lend themselves to another person’s idea of what’s logical. If I like to drive fast I might say it’s illogical for someone to drive an old pick-up, but that would be an inappropriate use of the term, “logical.”<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-28283131068914945522013-12-09T13:42:20.680-08:002013-12-09T13:42:20.680-08:00Looks like you'll never get past your arroganc...Looks like you'll never get past your arrogance problem.<br /><br /><br />"The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had give them. The constitution too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men." -Thomas JeffersonCWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-56538186100184341222013-12-09T13:38:17.521-08:002013-12-09T13:38:17.521-08:00I take it by your question that you believe the Fo...I take it by your question that you believe the Founders wouldn’t have approved because you believe they had too much respect for personal liberty?<br /><br />You ask the question as if you think I’m in favor of groping women and children and imposing high and unnecessary taxes on people. I don’t think the Founders would like what they see. I’m not sure what point you think you’re making to me, since the distortion of the Founders original vision for this nation is a central topic of this blog.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-41215684079930484602013-12-09T13:10:26.289-08:002013-12-09T13:10:26.289-08:00Ironically someone just posted a video of Josie on...Ironically someone just posted a video of Josie on one of the sites I visit. She was making the case against gun control and she did a very good job. I agree with pretty much all she said and in fact I just applied for my own concealed gun license here in Texas. But within her video I find contradictions to the gov’t-free society she seems to envision. Talking about guns she says, “Don’t fire if you’re not sure where the bullet might go, or who or what it might hit.” She refers to this as a “rule,” but my question to her would be: who made the “rule?” Who enforces the “rule?” What should happen to people who don’t follow the “rule,” as in the case of my cousin who was shot and killed doing the very thing she suggested is against the “rules?” Does the “rule” apply to people who don’t necessarily think it should be a rule?<br /><br />“…keep in mind why the second amendment was written. Even with the Constitution in place the Founders still thought it was ultimately the job of the people, not any legislator or court, to decide when the government had gone too far and to forcibly resist if necessary. So is it any wonder that the American ruling class now views anyone who talks too much about the Constitution or the D.O.I. as a possible terrorist?”<br /><br />That’s confusing to me, as she denounces the Constitution as “words on paper” (there’s another phrase I’ve seen many times now) while at the same time reminding us why the second amendment “was written” ……….on paper. She acknowledges that the Constitution is the enemy of the “ruling class,” but IMO that contradicts the idea of the Constitution as the enemy of freedom. The ruling class doesn’t like the Constitution – as originally written and conceived – for the very reason that they see it as the protector of the freedom they want to steal.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-84990292092795352002013-12-09T13:09:29.256-08:002013-12-09T13:09:29.256-08:00>>”I hesitate to get much more specific [abo...>>”I hesitate to get much more specific [about the NAP], because you'll probably use your illogic to find fault w/it—“<br /><br />So we just have to pass it before we can learn what’s in it, right? You sound EXACTLY like the last anarchist. “I have the perfect alternative to gov’t. Just don’t ask me to explain how it works.” LOL.<br /><br />Is it illogical to ask how it will be decided what behaviors rise to the level of “aggression?” Is it illogical to ask WHO will get to decide this and what happens if people disagree? Is it illogical to ask what will happen to people who don’t abide by your interpretation of the NAP? What if an accused person disputes the accusations against them? Who decides whether or not he’s really guilty? Who decides what his punishment will be? Are those illogical questions? If he is to be confined, how does that work? I suppose that’s an illogical question too. The test of whether or not something like the NAP is a viable alternative to something like the Constitution is whether it can stand up to simple, basic questions about how it will work. Based upon your disclaimer I assume it won’t. <br /><br />>>” There would be local/private mechanisms for dealing w/various levels of aggression/fraud/disputes.”<br /><br />Where do these private “mechanisms” derive their authority from for dealing with disputes involving you or me? Why would I submit to the authority of a private mechanism employed by you and why would you submit to a private mechanism employed by me? What would be my incentive to engage any private mechanism if I already had the upper hand? <br /><br />That’s just a tiny sampling of the questions you dismiss as nitpicking and “illogical,” which is why you can’t be taken seriously. You think you’ve achieved some higher level of thinking than the rest of the world when in reality others have long past considered the type of non-government government you think you’ve discovered. What you’re really saying, and Josie too, is that you want to substitute your own idea of gov’t for what we currently have. <br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-43462420845799744802013-12-09T13:07:30.999-08:002013-12-09T13:07:30.999-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-13019393962698115212013-12-08T09:46:19.376-08:002013-12-08T09:46:19.376-08:00Looks like you've surrendered to my superior p...Looks like you've surrendered to my superior position…<br /><br />I'll leave you w/a quote from Patrick Henry which described his opinion of the 'framers':<br /><br />"I smell a rat."KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-18257384867308563072013-12-07T07:43:30.034-08:002013-12-07T07:43:30.034-08:00With your vast knowledge of the 'founders'...With your vast knowledge of the 'founders', I wonder…what do you think THEY would think of federal agents (the TSA) virtually strip-searching and/or groping women and children?<br /><br />What would they think of the people who put the govt. which created the TSA into power--and who will only vote for politicians who think the TSA should be maintained and even EXPANDED to encompass more forms of travel?<br /><br />What would they think of the people who rationalize that it "keeps us safe"?<br /><br />What would they think of the people who rationalize it by saying "if you don't like it don't fly"?<br /><br />What do you think they'd think about federal agents (the NSA) seizing the private communications of nearly everyone (and the people who endorse/rationalize it,etc.)?<br /><br />What do you think they'd think about a 40-50-60% tax/regulatory burden and the IRS (and the people who endorse/rationalize it, etc.)?<br /><br />KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-54778151687951567702013-12-07T07:24:28.034-08:002013-12-07T07:24:28.034-08:00No, it wasn't a Stawman.
If you can use logic...No, it wasn't a Stawman.<br /><br />If you can use logical fallacies--and then deny that you do--then so can I!<br /><br />And, you didn't answer my Q about the "final arbiter"…nor do I think you even understand what the very concept of a "final arbiter" entails.<br /><br />I'll try this AGAIN and see if you attempt to answer it this time:<br /><br />How can you PROVE Gore/Kerry would've been worse than Bush and that McCain/Romney would've been less bad than Obama?<br /><br />Under an NAP system (where no privileged/unaccountable ruling Political Caste exists), there would be no "final arbiter" w/political power over a vast territory encompassing 100's of MILLIONS of people--since this very idea is insane and would be rejected by people capable of rational thought. There would be local/private mechanisms for dealing w/various levels of aggression/fraud/disputes. I wouldn't imagine they'd please 100% of the people 100% of the time or be infallible--but this infallibility would be restricted to a very local level, instead of harming 100's of MILLIONS--like when John "Strict Constructionist" Roberts deciding ACA was A-OK! However, they'd blow away the current socialist 'justice' system (which is rife w/conflicts of interest and corruption), set up by the 'founders', w/o a doubt--just like free-markets blow away socialism in every other sphere.<br /><br />I hesitate to get much more specific, because you'll probably use your illogic to find fault w/it--just like Left-wing Progs use illogic to poke holes in the assertion that private charity would function better than socialist wealth-redis programs. <br /><br />I don't need to ask Josie, because I'm not a follower (like Loyal Republican Voters are!) and I can logically think for myself (unlike some people who I know).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-9088647905008035672013-12-07T05:59:36.269-08:002013-12-07T05:59:36.269-08:00>>”Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she ...>>”Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she doesn't realize that the way to promote liberty is to vote for McCain and Romney!”<br /><br />Straw man: an intentional misrepresentation of another person’s argument in order to make it easier for you to prevail in debate.<br /><br />You could give Barack Obama some stiff competition for the prize of most prolific straw-man user. Apparently neither one of you has the confidence in his arguments to be honest. I NEVER said voting for McCain or Romney was a way to “promote liberty. “ Sure didn’t take long for you to go back on your word, btw (I guess that’s another thing you have in common with Obama.<br /><br />>>”And have you considered what happens when the "final arbiter" (as if this is even necessary or desirable!) doesn't do its job or abuses its status as "final arbiter"?”<br /><br />Certainly, which is why, given the fact that there will be gov’t whether I like it or not, I wanted to keep Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama out of the White House. <br /><br />My question to you is this: under the NAP, WHO decides what constitutes “aggression” and who decides what will be done about it? Don’t come back until you an answer (and no, it’s not cheating if you ask Josie).<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-46004317582237301882013-12-07T05:57:06.945-08:002013-12-07T05:57:06.945-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-34129676732323947732013-12-06T19:01:51.596-08:002013-12-06T19:01:51.596-08:00Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she doesn'...Yes, Josie isn't as smart as you…she doesn't realize that the way to promote liberty is to vote for McCain and Romney!<br /><br />And have you considered what happens when the "final arbiter" (as if this is even necessary or desirable!) doesn't do its job or abuses its status as "final arbiter"?<br /><br />I'm sorry…do you neocons have a monopoly on Hitler references?KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-46584431996637332302013-12-05T19:17:50.098-08:002013-12-05T19:17:50.098-08:00>>”Jefferson was in France during the 1787 C...>>”Jefferson was in France during the 1787 ConCon…and Franklin (who was old, frail, and mostly blind at the time) was primarily an honorary member who made very little (if any) substantial contribution.”<br /><br />That’s pretty pathetic straw-grasping. You gonna tell me Jefferson and Franklin weren’t really fully behind the Constitution? <br /><br />>>” …ignorant people tend to be the most confident in their knowledge.”<br /><br />That would explain all the laughter during Josie’s phony interview video.<br /><br /><br />>>”… its odd that you've made your voting decision for 2016 (and 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and…) already, w/o hearing a single debate, …”<br /><br />Huh? Besides the fact that I won’t be voting for a democrat you don’t a damned thing about my future votes. And unless you decide to give up on anarchy and resume voting then your voting decisions (non-voting) have also been made without hearing a single debate.<br /><br /><br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-12794198333122731922013-12-05T19:15:54.982-08:002013-12-05T19:15:54.982-08:00>>”And Josie (at such a young age) has a far...>>”And Josie (at such a young age) has a far better grasp of "rights" than you ever will…and the spine to speak the truth.”<br /><br />Unfortunately she doesn’t have the brain to know the truth.<br /><br />>>”That's because she actually has a guiding principle (NAP)--unlike you.”<br /><br />Has she considered who, under the NAP, is the final arbiter of what constitutes “aggression?” No? I thought not.<br /><br />>>My gosh…can you write a paragraph (or sentence) w/o resorting to Logical Fallacies?”<br /><br />And yet you never say what these “logical fallacies” are that I’m supposed to have committed. <br /><br />>>”And your little dig about wishing I'd ex-patriated 20 years ago was, once again, IDENTICAL to what Left-wing Progs say when I complain about THEIR socialism!”<br /><br />So you’re not popular with anyone. Big deal.<br /><br />>>”Your immaturity doesn't bother me, though…because--in a few years--you'll probably be the one wishing he'd picked-up and left the USSA!”<br /><br />YOUR immaturity bothers me tremendously. <br /><br />>>”Or, maybe not…maybe you'll be cheering on whatever American Hitler (granted he's a Republican) assumes power by then...”<br /><br />Hitler, eh? Gee, that’s original.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-84902721554618188202013-12-05T18:23:30.743-08:002013-12-05T18:23:30.743-08:00And Josie (at such a young age) has a far better g...And Josie (at such a young age) has a far better grasp of "rights" than you ever will…and the spine to speak the truth.<br /><br />That's because she actually has a guiding principle (NAP)--unlike you.<br /><br />My gosh…can you write a paragraph (or sentence) w/o resorting to Logical Fallacies?<br /><br />And your little dig about wishing I'd ex-patriated 20 years ago was, once again, IDENTICAL to what Left-wing Progs say when I complain about THEIR socialism!<br /><br />Your immaturity doesn't bother me, though…because--in a few years--you'll probably be the one wishing he'd picked-up and left the USSA!<br /><br />Or, maybe not…maybe you'll be cheering on whatever American Hitler (granted he's a Republican) assumes power by then...<br /><br /><br /><br />KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-65876601937733789532013-12-05T18:17:17.906-08:002013-12-05T18:17:17.906-08:00Jefferson was in France during the 1787 ConCon…and...Jefferson was in France during the 1787 ConCon…and Franklin (who was old, frail, and mostly blind at the time) was primarily an honorary member who made very little (if any) substantial contribution.<br /><br />You don't even know what the hell you're talking about…but, of course, ignorant people tend to be the most confident in their knowledge.<br /><br />For someone who claims to be a rational thinker, its odd that you've made your voting decision for 2016 (and 2020, and 2024, and 2028, and…) already, w/o hearing a single debate, ascertaining a single position of the GOP candidate, perusing said candidate's historical record, or even knowing WHO the candidate will be!<br /><br />Oh, but you're a "conservative not a Republican"!<br /><br />You crack me up CW...<br /><br />KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-38653989460686017692013-12-05T06:04:47.517-08:002013-12-05T06:04:47.517-08:00I think you two would make a good pair. Obviously...I think you two would make a good pair. Obviously you both read from the same sources (Josie: “More people need to learn about …the NAP, the concept of self ownership… a stateless society...” That’s right out of the book!)..<br /><br />In her video she says, “If any idea is silly and utopian it’s the idea that if you give a bunch of politicians dominion over the rest of us they will use that power to protect and serve us. When has that ever happened? And why does anyone think it ever will?”<br /><br />Good question! I would ask the same of her and with respect to being an advocate for the absence of gov’t: When has that ever happened? And why does anyone think it ever will? You didn’t have an answer when I asked you. The anarchist before you didn’t have an answer. Maybe Josie does. But I don’t think so. Maybe one day, when her thinking advances beyond just reading and regurgitating, she will consider what the solution is to the inevitability of gov’t. Right now her “I just want freedom” mantra only reminds me of when the liberals say “I just think people are more important” when they’re bad-mouthing capitalism. And what’s ironic is that she invokes a well-known quote by Thomas Jefferson – A FRAMER OF THE CONSTITUTION – while at the same time she presumes to know better than Jefferson (and Ben Franklin and all of the others who drafted the Constitution). How arrogant is that? Does she really believe that Jefferson, Madison and Washington et al never considered “freedom” as an alternative to gov’t??? <br /><br />Josie says, “Whenever rights are being violated in the name of law and authority…,” <br /><br />I can’t help but wonder if she’s given any thought at all to the concept of “rights.” What exactly are her rights? Where do they come from? How do we preserve them? I don’t think she’s thought about it but hey, she speaks with confidence and apparently that’s needed to impress libertarians and leftists.<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-9895350165660166642013-12-05T05:04:23.901-08:002013-12-05T05:04:23.901-08:00Hahahahaha! I’ll take that to mean you have no an...Hahahahaha! I’ll take that to mean you have no answer, so I think we’re done here. Thanks for playing!CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-72998009256398861922013-12-04T22:04:51.529-08:002013-12-04T22:04:51.529-08:00Now HERE'S one hell of a woman!
http://josiet...Now HERE'S one hell of a woman!<br /><br />http://josietheoutlaw.com/#learn-moreKingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-57950240345432122652013-12-04T22:03:28.859-08:002013-12-04T22:03:28.859-08:00…by voting for arseholes like Reagan, Bush, McCain...…by voting for arseholes like Reagan, Bush, McCain,and Romney…ok, got it!KingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-19857056864132567772013-12-04T22:02:44.164-08:002013-12-04T22:02:44.164-08:00False Analogy FallacyFalse Analogy FallacyKingKrawFishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612634065260906829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3073481508407030104.post-71804759844805780492013-12-04T11:12:00.101-08:002013-12-04T11:12:00.101-08:00What’s not logical is this notion you seem to have...What’s not logical is this notion you seem to have that people should or would sit around quietly, waiting to be victims of the arseholes who do whatever they please with no regard to the potential consequences for anyone else. There’s a special name for that: tyranny of the arseholes.<br /><br />>>” and I really wish I would've started the expatriation process back when this gentleman advised me to.”<br /><br />That makes two of us!<br />CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18093393578438689105noreply@blogger.com