is this the middle ages?

[londonfog]

I'm afraid that's not the equation though. I know you'd like to discuss your junior high fantasies, but here let me refresh your dull memory. We can return to your favorite topic, before you lose your pedo boner, don't worry.



A person does not possess a right to do something. That is expressed as zero.

Several other people also do not possess that right. That is expressed as more zeroes.


When we aggregate all those zero rights, the sum can never be anything but zero.

0+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 (ad finitum) = 0


So, if you don't have a right to do X, you cannot combine your zero right with a bunch of other people (even if those people superstitiously believe they have magical "government powers" ) and come up with a positive sum. Therefore, you CANNOT delegate a right you do not possess.

Now, I'm going to have to assume you can't disprove my simple equation above, since you haven't.

Let's try another question, maybe you'll do better.

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right? (L.Rose variant of question)

sorry but we disagree on a this and I would suggest you learn when and how math can be used. You also might want to do something about that trash in front of your home. You also need to do something about the shit in your stream.

 

[londonfog]

Since we know we can't delegate rights we don't possess, the answer is obvious, but I'll wait a bit so you have time to answer my second question. (hold onto to your pedo boner just a bit longer...you can do it)

Who is the third party and how were they chosen. Who gave them the power to hold judgement.
Also what if the dead person owned the land out right. No one would be seeking monies due from a loan. What then would happen to the murder and land stealer. Would that mean the murderer gets away scot-free. Thanks

 

[abandonconflict]

So, you admit that in the present, you can't stop a gang of government people from killing you and taking your land in whole or in part if the gang decides to take your land and/or kill you? Well, you didn't admit it, but you didn't refute it either, because you can't.
Eminent domain... Collateral damage.... Asset forfeiture... Property tax....should I continue, slave ?


In my "utopia" , theft and murder would still occur.

It's ironic that you would make a post like this when you're unwilling to give the land to which you hold exclusive deed back to the original inhabitants since it was the government that murdered them and privatized their land so that you could acquire it. Not only are you unable to stop the gang, you're thankful for their brutality, since you are the primary beneficiary of it.

 

[londonfog]

It's ironic that you would make a post like this when you're unwilling to give the land to which you hold exclusive deed back to the original inhabitants since it was the government that murdered them and privatized their land so that you could acquire it. Not only are you unable to stop the gang, you're thankful for their brutality, since you are the primary beneficiary of it.

@Rob Roy is a hypocrite as well as a slave

 

[Rob Roy]

sorry but we disagree on a this and I would suggest you learn when and how math can be used. You also might want to do something about that trash in front of your home. You also need to do something about the shit in your stream.

So, because you don't like the truth, as proven by me. You will claim there is an alternate truth, but you will fail to demonstrate the veracity of the truth and run to your very bestest "nuh -uh" argument and then YOU will be winning?

Okay, let's try that second question...

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

 

[abandonconflict]

@Rob Roy is a hypocrite as well as a slave

And a pedo.

 

[Rob Roy]

It's ironic that you would make a post like this when you're unwilling to give the land to which you hold exclusive deed back to the original inhabitants since it was the government that murdered them and privatized their land so that you could acquire it. Not only are you unable to stop the gang, you're thankful for their brutality, since you are the primary beneficiary of it.

Part of your post raises a good point, worthy of discussion sometime, after you apologize for falsely accusing me of things.

The way to stop the gang is to end the superstition that the gang can ever be anything but a gang.

 

[Rob Roy]

@Rob Roy is a hypocrite as well as a slave

Says the "math wizard" .

 

[Rob Roy]

It's ironic that you would make a post like this when you're unwilling to give the land to which you hold exclusive deed back to the original inhabitants since it was the government that murdered them and privatized their land so that you could acquire it. Not only are you unable to stop the gang, you're thankful for their brutality, since you are the primary beneficiary of it.

If the land is privatized...explain taxation please.

 

[londonfog]

Says the "math wizard" .

Jealousy does not look well on you

 

[londonfog]

So, because you don't like the truth, as proven by me. You will claim there is an alternate truth, but you will fail to demonstrate the veracity of the truth and run to your very bestest "nuh -uh" argument and then YOU will be winning?

Okay, let's try that second question...

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

Who is the third party and how were they chosen. Who gave them the power to hold judgement.
Also what if the dead person owned the land out right. No one would be seeking monies due from a loan. What then would happen to the murder and land stealer. Would that mean the murderer gets away scot-free. Thanks

 

[Rob Roy]

Who is the third party and how were they chosen. Who gave them the power to hold judgement.
Also what if the dead person owned the land out right. No one would be seeking monies due from a loan. What then would happen to the murder and land stealer. Would that mean the murderer gets away scot-free. Thanks

A third party is a person who's interest are aligned with finding the truth. Meaning they get paid to do this, if they don't do it well, they don't eat. Market feedback.

The power to hold judgment ? Do you mean the power to enforce restitution on a guilty party?

If your neighbor owned their land outright (an impossibility in the present due to taxation) and a known murderer moved in next door to you and your other neighbors....you would do what ? In the present you would probably do nothing, because your master has forbidden you to use defensive force and you are very obedient. In "my utopia" you would not be under any constraints not to use defensive force. In that scenario, it's very likely that neighbors would agree to mutual aid pacts on a voluntary basis isn't it?


Also, I'd like to point out, you didn't answer my first question and now are ignoring my second question.

 

[londonfog]

A third party is a person who's interest are aligned with finding the truth. Meaning they get paid to do this, if they don't do it well, they don't eat. Market feedback.
Who would hire this person? and how would he or she get paid ? The owner is dead
The power to hold judgment ? Yeah in your utopia Do you mean the power to enforce restitution on a guilty party? are you getting stupider
If your neighbor owned their land outright (an impossibility in the present due to taxation) and a known murderer moved in next door to you and your other neighbors....you would do what ? In the present you would probably do nothing, because your master has forbidden you to use defensive force and you are very obedient. In "my utopia" you would not be under any constraints not to use defensive force. In that scenario, it's very likely that neighbors would agree to mutual aid pacts on a voluntary basis isn't it? None of this answer the question about you being murdered for your land and how someone would pay for such a deed

Also, I'd like to point out, you didn't answer my first question and now are ignoring my second question. learn when math is to be applied and when it is not. Don't make yourself look even more stupid.

IN RED. Would be nice if you could be honest with your conversation, but we know being honest would mean you being wrong as shit. Come back to reality. Human nature shits on your utopia.

 

[Rob Roy]

IN RED. Would be nice if you could be honest with your conversation, but we know being honest would mean you being wrong as shit. Come back to reality. Human nature shits on your utopia.

I still hold out for the possibility of you answering my questions. I'm sure you'll get to them...ahem.

If you were a decent neighbor, and you were murdered, do you think it likely that other people would not want your murderer living near them ? I think it is likely. Even if you didn't like your neighbor, it would be in your interest and the rest of the neighbors interest to investigate the circumstances, lest the murderer kill you next.

Concerning your avoiding answering my questions and specifically the math question. Isn't it appropriate to ask where a group of people who claim authority acquire such a right from? Yes, it is. Your reluctance to answer two questions so far, is telling.

Here, let's try a third question -

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

 

[abandonconflict]

If the land is privatized...explain taxation please.

Get a legal text.

 

[Rob Roy]

Get a legal text.

Define privatization please.

 

[abandonconflict]

Define privatization please.

Ironic that a guy who thinks that racial discrimination is a neutral and peaceful act is demanding that words be defined for him.

While you're looking in a legal text, hit up the section about child sexual consent laws.

 

[londonfog]

I still hold out for the possibility of you answering my questions. I'm sure you'll get to them...ahem.

If you were a decent neighbor, and you were murdered, do you think it likely that other people would not want your murderer living near them ? I think it is likely. Even if you didn't like your neighbor, it would be in your interest and the rest of the neighbors interest to investigate the circumstances, lest the murderer kill you next.

Concerning your avoiding answering my questions and specifically the math question. Isn't it appropriate to ask where a group of people who claim authority acquire such a right from? Yes, it is. Your reluctance to answer two questions so far, is telling.

Here, let's try a third question -

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

translation - I have no idea how my fantasy utopia would work. Magic pill to make all get along??...and if not, then the neighbors will all magically come together and agree

 

[Budley Doright]

"Hello? FCC? My name is Schuylaar and there is this guy online who is stalking me. Will you help me please?

Also, Publix owes me half a nugget.

I am a very stable genius with an IQ higher than yours.

What? I am currently unemployed but people are throwing six figure jobs at me because my resume is impeccable. Um, yes, I did go on record as selling sub-mid grams to the old people in my complex. What does that have to do with anything? Did you even hear me? Somebody is being mean to me! I pay taxes... well, I sort of don't - but it is better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission... and I demand that you do your job of stopping people from being mean to me!"

I’m still waiting for the answer to the IQ query or the stash rip off innuendo. I guess there are a few that shy away from the hard questions. Using a make believe math, and I use this term as loosely as possible “formula” to prove he is winning only proves he is lost. I’ll address that on Saturday, hint, we do have rights so insert a 1 instead of a zero, then delegate a fraction of that 1 to a central authority to carry out the will of all the “1’s” the central authority with the highest number is given the chance to “hopefully” carry out the wishes of the majority ....... oh shit wait, that’s democracy based on a constitutional government.

 

[Rob Roy]

I’m still waiting for the answer to the IQ query or the stash rip off innuendo. I guess there are a few that shy away from the hard questions. Using a make believe math, and I use this term as loosely as possible “formula” to prove he is winning only proves he is lost. I’ll address that on Saturday, hint, we do have rights so insert a 1 instead of a zero, then delegate a fraction of that 1 to a central authority to carry out the will of all the “1’s” the central authority with the highest number is given the chance to “hopefully” carry out the wishes of the majority ....... oh shit wait, that’s democracy based on a constitutional government.

How does any of what you said change the idea that you can't delegate a right you do not possess? It doesn't.

If you don't possess a right to do x , you can't assign something nonexistent to another person or combine a bunch of peoples nonexistent rights and create anything with that big fat pile of nothing.

You can delegate YOUR rights, because you possess those. You can't delegate another persons rights (against their will) without creating an inequality via your denial of the other persons rights. Ironic that this is lost on the hyena's who think they are protecting a right, which doesn't exist, being the "right" to force another person to serve you.

So, tell me, do you have the right to force an unwilling neutral person to serve you? No, you do not.
If you don't have that right, who does? I don't think ANYONE does.