![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
I see nothing in that mass of post besides a bunch of "because I say so" nonsense.
Moderator: Edi
I too found it interesting and impactful that rather than simply regurgitating the myriad points from the first thread Surlethe simply picked apart all the logical fallacies Volly-wolly-doodle threw up as a 'pre-emptive' counter attack. It was as though Volly was trying to have the same debate again, and Surlethe grabbed the BS by the horns and said "we're going to start this right from the beginning."brianeyci wrote:
*snip*
Obviously Volly expects Surlethe to argue a certain way, to bring up Somalia and other talking points that most people do when smashing down libertarians, and the best tactic is not to oblige. How's it feel to have wasted all those hours figuring out genius rebuttals to what you thought he'd bring up, now all wasted Volly? You are about to be crushed -- Surlethe is not just another talking head who memorizes talking points like some others in the dogpile, but has a razor sharp intellect and won't stand for your crap. Let's see if you can prove something, or if you're argument is completely empty like creationists who have no argument at all but only criticisms of what they don't understand.
You know, I wonder how he really sees a voluntaryist society defending itself from outside agression ; Any guerilla force has to be well organized and disciplined to stand a chance against a military ; Does he expect people to spontaneusly associate and form large clandestine organizations without any form of coercion? What if,for example, some of them turn traitor and have to be executed for the good of the resistance movement?DW wrote:In short, his definition of government is so broad that even a private company, charity or church has a government.
Pretty much only the insane and the hermits out in the woods.Darth Wong wrote: There's not a whole lot left of society once you get rid of everything that meets Volly's definition of "government", is there?
I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.Patrick Degan wrote:Volleyball's "definition" of government is essentially one big strawman he likes to set fire to. To focus on a particular example of his argument discussing democracy, he proceeds in complete ignorance of the various forms of democratic government in practise in the modern world.......
I presume that's a merging of "Voluntaryist Screwball"? I had hoped for Volly-wolly myself, but Volleyball gets my voteSchuyler Colfax wrote: I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.
I think Nitram hung that one on him but I'm not sure.Schuyler Colfax wrote:I nominate Volleyball to be the official flamename for Voluntaryist. Surlethe proves once again that he never disappoints. Well done.Patrick Degan wrote:Volleyball's "definition" of government is essentially one big strawman he likes to set fire to. To focus on a particular example of his argument discussing democracy, he proceeds in complete ignorance of the various forms of democratic government in practise in the modern world.......
I was reminded of a line from "Good Morning Vietnam"What does it even mean to 'recognize' an interaction? Is it like when one country "recognizes" another country as a legitimate government?
Robin Williams wrote:Great Britain recognized the island state of Singapore. How do you recognize an island? Do you go, exc-- Hey, wait. No, don't tell me. Wait, wait. Didn't we meet last year at the Feinman bar mitzvah? You look a lot like Hawaii. Didn't we meet last year at the Peninsula Club? No.
I brought that up in the original HoS thread, and he ignored it. Then, when I commented on this to another poster, he claimed that he hadn't ignored it, but had just missed it because everyone was piling on him. So I reposted it and he promptly ignored it again! I loved that, and I'm looking forward to seeing if he actually has any answer for this point at all.Darth Wong wrote:In short, his definition of government is so broad that even a private company, charity or church has a government.
It's true for any system of ethics which relies solely upon "rights". Human rights are part of a healthy system of ethics; they are not the entirety. Any system of ethics which refuses to recognize the individual's responsibility to society is broken.Stas Bush wrote:You also shouldn't let his argument that democracy and government always acts in the interests of the majority fly. Not only is it false, but I fail to see what is wrong with a more precise - that the government in general is supposed to act in the interest of the majority, from a moral (utilitarian) standpoint.
I wonder what system of ethics does Voluntarist use. Since he advocated "weak perish, strong survive - nature-style" for a human society, I highly suspect it's terribly broken.
I remember once that a good point was made on SDN when a person in need of medicine was dying and in a libertarian society another person witnessing it could deny this medicine to him, and suffer no penalty. Whilst in reality this would be criminal neglience leading to death and suffering of a person.
It took a while to hammer that point, but it's really true for all incarnations of "property right is the only and supreme".
Surlethe took 2 or 3 days to answer, give V time. Plus, its a holiday weekend.Coiler wrote:Does anyone else think that Surlethe might have scared Volly away?
He doesn't know how to present evidence. It's a lot like dealing with the sort of creationist who says that the complexity of the human body is proof of God's intervention. They produce voluminous "evidence" to support their point, but they don't realize that you need a non sequitur in order to regard it as evidence.The Vortex Empire wrote:Did Volleyball even provide one real piece of evidence to back up his claims? This guy does not know how to debate. Vortex Co. Security Forces have been dispatched to apprehend him, as the stupidity is a threat to those around him.
I must confess I'm in awe of the strength of the wall of ignorance necessary for a citizen of the US to make such a statement in spite of the fact the constitution he lives under explicitly separates powers, mandates regular elections of, places term limits on... governors precisely because of an awareness that people are fallible and shouldn't be trusted.Voluntaryist wrote: But government, on the other hand, believes that some people are inherently better and should be trusted with extra special rights over others in the vain belief that this ruling class will somehow produce superior results.
I don't know for sure if all US states have term limits on governors or other elected officials.Plekhanov wrote:I must confess I'm in awe of the strength of the wall of ignorance necessary for a citizen of the US to make such a statement in spite of the fact the constitution he lives under explicitly separates powers, mandates regular elections of, places term limits on... governors precisely because of an awareness that people are fallible and shouldn't be trusted.Voluntaryist wrote: But government, on the other hand, believes that some people are inherently better and should be trusted with extra special rights over others in the vain belief that this ruling class will somehow produce superior results.