Private Social Media Platform

Thomas Sowell @ThomasSowell
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.

To feel entitled to not pay back into the very system that enables your wealth is like feeling entitled by the freedom they risk everything for to disrespect the military that defends your way of life. This is supposed to be a self-sustaining 'system' that lifts all boats, not a ponzi scheme.

Obviously your suggestion would generate less waste. But it could also generate horrific byproducts that the waste-savings would by no means make up for.

I said it *could* generate horrific byproducts, I didn't say it would. But it's easy to imagine the problems.

That said, here's my problem with dug-in political factions: each position that is not motivated purely by greed is a theory of what could make things better for everyone, not a method guaranteed to be better for everyone.

Nobody can know what will certainly work. We found out that communism falls short of what its idealists aspired to because of elements in human nature that were not factored into the method.

Any theory of organization is subject to unforeseeables and thus non-easily reversible tragedies of the commons.

Thus, the only reasonable discussions of these matters are philosophical, i.e., where we discuss them as though we don't have a dog in the race (even though we may and inevitably do).

But this 'certainty' that one's favorite alternative system will be better than a current system known to have flaws is, out the gate, the presentation of theory as *fact*, so naturally becomes easily suspect as motivated by greed rather than ideals.

When speculating on the potential of an idealized ideological maneuver, it is unbecoming of the philosophical method to sound-off as a zealot rather than an inquiring skeptic, for literally *none* of us are clairvoyant, and thus can 'know' what would be most fair and bring the most happiness for sure.

Certainly complex topics reduced to memes is the least philosophocal way to approach ideological ideas.

Dale Eastman answer: mutual protection from tragedies of the commons where each person acting in their own otherwise reasonable self-interest will degrade an aspect of the commons for everyone unless obligated to conform to regulations.

How is that service to be paid for?

Dale Eastman it *is* paid for by taxation as far as I know. How it *should* be paid for may be debated. What do you think?

➽ What do you think?

I think you and I have a collision of ideology(ies).

How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.

➽ How it *should* be paid for may be debated.

Yes, please. Let us discuss this issue of how protecting the commons should be protected and paid for.
(I appreciate that you are aware of the Tragedy of the Commons.)

I am also aware that any sidewalk or road in any village, town, city, megalopolis, or state are the commons. I think the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of all these different commons will need examination.

This segues to Where did those calling themselves the state get a Right-to-Rule and a Right-to-Initiate violence?

What if nobody wants this "service"?

Dale Eastman you wrote: //How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.//

I'm not sure we have a conflict, but words might be getting in the way. I did not say it should or shouldn't be paid with other methods besides taxation, I only said that's how it is paid currently, and I also said that how it should be paid could be debated.

I agree with Proudhon that property is theft. But, given we permit property, then we are thus ensconced within a kleptocracy and our discussion proceeds under the paradigm of what 'should' happen within a kleptocracy. This is much more complicated that talking about what should happen in a truly free anarchic society.

If you are advocating for no property, then the pardigm shifts and we would agree that both taxation and property are theft. If you are advocating for property (which is theft from the commons) but not for taxes (which you regard as theft from its rightful earners), then you may be in a sorites purgatory contemplating the boundary between good theft and bad theft.

I have just downloaded his book of the same name.

Source: https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/property-is-theft-a-pierre-joseph-proudhon-anthology/Property%20Is%20Theft%21_%20A%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudh%20-%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudhon.pdf

1300 pages. I will get back to you once I understand Proudhon's definition of property. Using that to give me an idea as to what you might mean & intend by using the word property.

I'm also tagging my Georgia acquaintance in case he's interested in the convo.

Voting won't fix the system.

poor red hats dont want everyone voting so they make up fraud issues, unfortunately the Republicans are the only ones that have been actively trying to cheat.

I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?

Dale Eastman I'd like to agree, but I see way more effort by the Democrats to help the average American. I only see the right trying to help the rich and their corporations.

I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?

Dale Eastman I was talking to Jack Spencer, he seems like another red hat. This group is dominated by ignorant red hats.

You have accused me of being a red hat in the past...
I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?
Am I supposed to pretend you didn't write this, "he seems like another red hat."
At this moment in time there are only the three of us. "Another red hat implies more than one. Are you calling yourself a red hat?

Dale Eastman I was commenting to Jack, like I said. If I called you a red hat before it must have been cause you were sounding like one.

Thank you for your partial answer. Because you perceived I sounded like one is not evidence.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a red hat?
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a blue hat?

Dale Eastman Dude, if you dont know by now about the MAGA red hat cult, that forgives everything a crooked con man says or does without question, than you've not been keeping up.

There are no blue hats, thats silly.

Red/blue Hats... Red/blue M&Ms... You still don't comprehend what I have been telling you.

Dale Eastman You dont seem to comprehend what I've been telling you.

You're telling me that you are a VOTARD.

Dear Candidate [and stupid Votard],

I have some questions I would like you to answer.

As an officeholder in a government office, elected candidate gets the authority to do governmental things.
1. Admit or deny?

One of those governmental things is the authority to "govern."
2. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-govern."
3. Admit or deny?

"To govern" is "to control."
3. Admit or deny?

"To control" is "to rule."
4. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-rule."
5. Admit or deny?

The government office the elected candidate holds delegates to the elected candidate, a "right-to-govern", a "right-to-control", and a "right-to-rule".
6. Admit or deny?

That office was delegated the rights to govern, control, and rule.
7. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
8. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
9. Admit or deny?

The identified group called "We the People" can ONLY include all the people then living at the time of the ordination and establishment (September 17, 1787).
10. Admit or deny?

All government office rights to govern, control, and rule, was delegated from "We the People" existing in September 1787 by means of the United State's Constitution.
11. Admit or deny?

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
12. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
13. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
14. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
15. Admit or deny?

Elected candidates for public (government) offices are humans.
16. Admit or deny?

Voters are humans.
17. Admit or deny?

No voter has a right-to-rule any other human.
18. Admit or deny?

Therefore voting can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to any candidates for public (government) offices
19. Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman Wrong, I think I said I was and want to vote third party, I just owe it to America to try and keep Trump out of the White house. Hes already spelled out his agenda, and if thats not bad enough theres project 2025, which everyone should be really really afraid of. If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

➽ If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

Please present your evidence to support your claim.

Dale Eastman Please use your brain to figure this out.

Its not terribly difficult.

I asked you a question about your posted bull shit. Something I always do when Idjits make false claims.

➽ If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

Please present your evidence to support your claim.

Dale Eastman I'll repeat, try thinking about it, I dont answer dumb questions.
Are you sure you're not a red hat?

question noun
❶ A sentence, phrase, or gesture that seeks information through a reply.
❷ A subject or point that is under discussion or open to controversy.
"the question of whether a new school should be built."
❸  A matter of concern or difficulty; a problem.
"This is not a question of too little money."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

You're posting bull shit. I am seeking information about your posted bull shit.

Quote from: June 1 @ 22:12 ➽ Dale Eastman You dont seem to comprehend what I've been telling you.

In three words I can sum up what you have been saying for longer than in just this thread. "Orange man bad."

➽ Are you sure you're not a red hat?

I can not answer your question without an unequivocal definition so I know exactly what you are asking me. I won't know if I am within your question's specific definition until you actually present YOUR definition of what a red hat is? I want articulate details of the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a red hat?

I have quoted your following words because they clearly identify you as a "𝒮𝓉𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓈𝓉".
A Statist is an advocate of statism, a political system that favors state control over individual rights and freedoms.

Here you are posting under Strike The Root's Original Post. I suspect you have no clue as to what "𝕊𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕜𝕖 𝕋𝕙𝕖 ℝ𝕠𝕠𝕥" means.

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” – Henry David Thoreau

As a Statist you're are expressing your fealty to evil. You are not striking at the root, nor are you even hacking at the branches of evil.

➽ Thus the beauty of divided government and checks and balances.
Warts and all, still the fairest system on the planet.

Written like a properly indoctrinated slave in and of the ruled class.

➽ ahhh but the alternative is roving bands of marauders pillaging what they want.

Why do you think a majority of the word's humans hate the US of A?