Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions (Read 7395 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5760
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #480 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:55am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 8:29am:
I didn't want you to think I approved of it...

But it's actually the people who live in the city that control what powers are granted to their government in the charter.

You make it sound as if the city government can grant itself powers, and that's the essence of a tyrannical government.


City Government’s Grant themselves power all the time.

So do state and the federal government.

People don’t consent to government because there is no real way for them to not consent. 

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #481 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:57am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:55am:
People don’t consent to government because there is no real way for them to not consent. 



Making up your own terms and definitions ... again ...
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10525
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #482 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:33am
Print Post  
I think what he's talking about is the null hypothesis.

If you posit that there is consent, you must start from the idea that there is not consent and disprove it.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #483 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:36am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:33am:
I think what he's talking about is the null hypothesis.

If you posit that there is consent, you must start from the idea that there is not consent and disprove it.


Again you're erroneously conflating the definition of terms and making an actual argument.

Baseball - a game with 9 players on a side where each side takes turns batting

Note that is the definition of a term.  It is not an argument.

Don/Burnsred/Little Big Man/Little Biq Man is using the term "consent of the governed" in a way that does not meet the definition of the term.

kaz:  Football is not baseball
Opposition:  Ah, so what you're arguing is you like sports where there is direct contact between teams?
kaz:  um ... no, that's not an argument, just a statement of fact
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10525
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #484 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:45am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:36am:
Don/Burnsred/Little Big Man/Little Biq Man is using the term "consent of the governed" in a way that does not meet the definition of the term.


You say that like there's a precise and clear definition of consent of the governed.

I agree he's using the term wrong; I just think he actually intends to be talking about the null hypothesis, not consent of the governed specifically.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #485 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:52am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:45am:
You say that like there's a precise and clear definition of consent of the governed.

I agree he's using the term wrong; I just think he actually intends to be talking about the null hypothesis, not consent of the governed specifically.


OK.  I don't see how you get that out of it though.  What hypothesis are you saying he's testing against the null hypothesis?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5760
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #486 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:45am:
You say that like there's a precise and clear definition of consent of the governed.

I agree he's using the term wrong; I just think he actually intends to be talking about the null hypothesis, not consent of the governed specifically.


The word “consent” is a verb.  Therefore it is an action.  One either performs an action or one doesn’t.  Jeff/Kaz’ claim that silence equals consent is the classic excuse used by people who have sex with women who pass out after drinking. 

Consent in the U.S. is a catch-22.  According to Jeff/Kaz, government “has been given” power to tax and we consent if we aren’t rioting in the streets because we’re too busy working two jobs to keep up with the taxes. 

But . . . If we do riot in the streets, government “has been empowered” to stop insurrections so we consent to being mowed down.

There is no realistic way to withdraw the supposed consent Jeff and Kaz believe in.  They think slaves consented to the constitution because their masters voted for representatives to represent “all the people,” not just white landowners.  That makes sense to them, so they clearly use a made up definition of “logic.”

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #487 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 11:01am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
The word “consent” is a verb.  Therefore it is an action.  One either performs an action or one doesn’t.  Jeff/Kaz’ claim that silence equals consent is the classic excuse used by people who have sex with women who pass out after drinking




Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
Consent in the U.S. is a catch-22.  According to Jeff/Kaz, government “has been given” power to tax and we consent if we aren’t rioting in the streets because we’re too busy working two jobs to keep up with the taxes. 

But . . . If we do riot in the streets, government “has been empowered” to stop insurrections so we consent to being mowed down.




Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
There is no realistic way to withdraw the supposed consent Jeff and Kaz believe in.  They think slaves consented to the constitution because their masters voted for representatives to represent “all the people,” not just white landowners.  That makes sense to them, so they clearly use a made up definition of “logic.”




  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10525
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #488 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 11:10am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:52am:
OK.  I don't see how you get that out of it though.  What hypothesis are you saying he's testing against the null hypothesis?


That there is consent of the governed. (But he's not talking about consent of the governed; he's talking about the method of testing that assumption.)

If I want to say [insert positive claim], then I start with [insert positive claim] is false, and work to disprove the statement: [insert positive claim] is false.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
The word “consent” is a verb.


Laze is also a verb.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
There is no realistic way to withdraw the supposed consent Jeff and Kaz believe in.


I suppose they could start shooting.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:54am:
They think slaves consented to the constitution because their masters voted for representatives to represent “all the people,” not just white landowners.  That makes sense to them, so they clearly use a made up definition of “logic.”


Well, it's Earth rules, you know.

This goes back to the question of consent. You can't force other people to consent to something, and if they never agreed to use the rules you like, then they're using no rules, or the ones they like.

This is why I keep saying insults win. We have no agreement from anyone that they don't. Those aren't the rules, unless everyone agrees to them. Even then, rules like that require a seriously amazing honour system to work properly, otherwise no one will ever admit they committed a fallacy.

In other works, the functionality of a system (here exemplified is informal logic) requires good people, not a good system.

Communism would work if everyone was good. So would AnCap. So would crapitalism, because people would just pass on buying the government, even when they had the funds to do it.

But the thing is, every system fails if everyone (or even a sufficient threshold) is bad. All failsafes stop working above a threshold, and all failsafes stop working in anonymity/high population.

Yes: Good, honest people make any system work, and bad, dishonest people collapse any system.

If you disagree with any of this, please tell me.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45221
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Reply #489 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 12:48pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:55am:
City Government’s Grant themselves power all the time.

So do state and the federal government.
They are acting tyrannically when/if they do that.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 52
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Thread for Jeff to Answer Questions
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy