1
   

IS HOSTILITY TO SELF-DEFENSE PART OF CLASS WARFARE ?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:54 am
OGIONIK wrote:
parados wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.
Actually, you have just shown you have never read Locke but are just spouting your own BS.

Actually, no. gov't owning of property negates society somehow being voluntary, BECAUSE IF THEY OWN THE LAND, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO
Most people own land of some kind. Because you don't doesn't mean the government owns what you don't. The federal government owns aboutr 31% of the land in the US. Much of it in areas where you couldn't grow food or subsist without assistance.
Quote:

Quote:

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?
You can go where ever you want. The problem is you have to deal with a society that has banded together to protect itself from sociopaths that want to do whatever they feel like.

Wrong, the gov't owns the property, ergo i cannot go anywhere without infringing upon a society if my goal was to leave that society. sorry nice try..
Nice try yourself. Do you think land was "free" before the US government came into being? It wasn't. It has almost always been owned by someone.
Quote:

Quote:

NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.

So your goal is to live without property? This after you said it is property that negates Locke?

that doesnt exactly make sense... wouldnt that in effect be agreeing with me?
No it wouldn't because Locke says that private property is why we banded together into society. That is OPPOSITE of your claim that goverment owns all the land and prevents you from owning any. You are free to buy land from private owners anytime you feel like it. Because you don't is NOT the fault of society. It could be your own failings.
Quote:

Quote:

UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Hardly an ultimatum since as Locke points out society has to provide what the people in that society want. You are free to work to change the social contract or ignore it. You are not free to dictate what the majority of other people should want.

nor is society free to dictate what i want, But its not voluntary. its either do or face consequences, and thats an ultimatum.
So, you ARE a sociopath then. "Get off my land or face consequences" is protection of one's property from the land owners viewpoint. Even without a social contract you would NOT be free to do whatever you wanted because you would still have to deal with other individuals protecting their property from your encroachments.
Quote:

Quote:

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
Locke never calls giving up the "perfect freedom" of the natural state anything other than giving up freedom. He never calls it "true freedom."

Correct, i mistakelent thought he did, but it was in another debate someone said locke called it true freedom, thanks for the correction.
Giving up freedom is NOT called 'perfect freedom' either according to Locke. You have it all backwards.

Quote:

You would be wrong, what protections does society grant me? society makes me weak, society makes it so i cant grow my own food,
Don't blame society if you are too lazy to grow your own food. Go buy a couple of acres and do it if you really want to. But it isn't societies fault that you don't.
Quote:
or attain my own land,
Much of this country owns their own land. Why don't you?
Quote:
society means paying for things i dont use, to subject myself to a system where i will be forced to compete against people who have clear and definite advantages (being set up to fail), to see people enjoying society with these advantages, to be seen as an outcast because of my disadvantages, to be set up to fail, and be punished for that failure, society to me means sacrifice for nothing, police do not protect me,
You are unable to buy your own land but you think somehow if you were given free land you could defend it yourself against all comers while still finding the time to grow your own food and do your own doctoring? You don't understand that even without government you would STILL have to buy or somehow take land from the person owning it. As Locke says, government was formed to help defend property so you don't have to spend all your time doing that. Without government if you had land you would have no security that you could keep that land.
Quote:

doctors will save my life but in doing so subject me to further monetary debt of which i already struggle to evade, we are PAYING FOR A WAR IN IRAQ, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA DO NOT WANT THIS WAR, by your definitions, society is a failure already.
I never said the social contract always works well.

Quote:

PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO BE CITED FOR CROSSING THE STREET AT THE WRONG AREA (how exactly is this benifiting society again?),
Ever think that it protects you from being run over and traffic freom being completely stopped because fools are being run over?
Quote:

ANYMORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR INGESTING CERTAIN CHEMICALS, THE SOCIETY OF TODAY IS A FAR CRY FROM (**** caps lock!) what locke is describing. if society was how locke "described" it i would have no qualms about it, but it is not. "society" today does whats best for the rich, for the priviledged, not for the general population, the working class.
I can agree somewhat but it is we the working class that has allowed that by buying into some of the arguments like "the rich create jobs."

Quote:

Society does not benifit me, society benifits from me. Oh yeah, clean drinking water with so much chlorine in it i want to puke, so i provide my own, food with hormones and chemicals, contant pollution, destruction of the environment, this is what society brings me?
Actually society has worked to restrict those items. Imagine a world where people could pollute as much as they wanted without government to stop them. Somehow you are under the impression that government causes all those problems when in reality government helps to mitigate them.
Quote:

This is what i should sacrafice freedom for? for contant destruction and exploitation of our home? twisting and deformation, abuse, neglect and incompetency in creation of new laws? for obvious corruption that goes unpunished yet, i am held accountable for the most minor of offenses?
To see police break the law every day, supposed defenders of the law, with impunity, to fear the law more than i fear the adverse effects of not having said laws?
You really need to get over the ticket you got for jaywalking. It's eating you up.
Quote:

Sure, society is awesome.
It's better than being dead because someone bigger than you wanted the skin you were wearing, don't you think?
Quote:

i will quote aristotle "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."

Wow, couldn't have said it better. If it werent for females i would leave society in a heartbeat.
There you have it then. You don't really want to live on your own. You have accepted the social contract to be around females. Locke was correct after all.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 09:17 am
parados wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
parados wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT OWNING PROPERTY NEGATES ALL OF THAT LOCKE BULLSHIT.
Actually, you have just shown you have never read Locke but are just spouting your own BS.

Actually, no. gov't owning of property negates society somehow being voluntary, BECAUSE IF THEY OWN THE LAND, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO
Most people own land of some kind. Because you don't doesn't mean the government owns what you don't. The federal government owns aboutr 31% of the land in the US. Much of it in areas where you couldn't grow food or subsist without assistance.
Quote:

Quote:

IF I DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF SOCIETY WHERE CAN I GO?
You can go where ever you want. The problem is you have to deal with a society that has banded together to protect itself from sociopaths that want to do whatever they feel like.

Wrong, the gov't owns the property, ergo i cannot go anywhere without infringing upon a society if my goal was to leave that society. sorry nice try..
Nice try yourself. Do you think land was "free" before the US government came into being? It wasn't. It has almost always been owned by someone.
Quote:

Quote:

NOWHERE!. ITS EITHER BE PART OF SOCIETY OR BE PART OF PRISON SOCIETY. (I CAN SEE IT NOW, LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, ALL DRESSED IN ANIMAL SKINS ROFL HAHA, AND PARK RANGERS ROLL UP "SIR YOUR COMING WITH US!") ITS SORTA FUNNY BUT TRUE.

So your goal is to live without property? This after you said it is property that negates Locke?

that doesnt exactly make sense... wouldnt that in effect be agreeing with me?
No it wouldn't because Locke says that private property is why we banded together into society. That is OPPOSITE of your claim that goverment owns all the land and prevents you from owning any. You are free to buy land from private owners anytime you feel like it. Because you don't is NOT the fault of society. It could be your own failings.

free to buy land? it would take me until i died to save up for that, and then i wouldnt be able to afford anything else.the game is rigged in the favor of people who are already winning.(and their offspring) which is why i have doubts about the society in which i live. being set up to fail makes it hard to succeed, naturally.

Quote:

Quote:

UTTER NONSENSE, I NEVER LIKED SOME OF LOCKES IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BS, ITS NOT A CONTRACT, ITS AN ULTIMATUM.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Hardly an ultimatum since as Locke points out society has to provide what the people in that society want. You are free to work to change the social contract or ignore it. You are not free to dictate what the majority of other people should want.

nor is society free to dictate what i want, But its not voluntary. its either do or face consequences, and thats an ultimatum.
So, you ARE a sociopath then. "Get off my land or face consequences" is protection of one's property from the land owners viewpoint. Even without a social contract you would NOT be free to do whatever you wanted because you would still have to deal with other individuals protecting their property from your encroachments.

yes i in fact would be free, free to defend myself. free to flee from attackers etc.. i dont agree. i dont think humans should own land in the first place. thats why wars are fought. it should be communal, and no, its not communal as it stands.
Quote:

Quote:

ALL THAT "TRUE FREEDOM" GARBAGE, GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY ISNT CALLED TRUE FREEDOM! ITS CALLED GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY!
Locke never calls giving up the "perfect freedom" of the natural state anything other than giving up freedom. He never calls it "true freedom."

Correct, i mistakelent thought he did, but it was in another debate someone said locke called it true freedom, thanks for the correction.
Giving up freedom is NOT called 'perfect freedom' either according to Locke. You have it all backwards.

No im saying i qupoted a person , and that person didnt quote locke correctly Smile

Quote:

You would be wrong, what protections does society grant me? society makes me weak, society makes it so i cant grow my own food,
Don't blame society if you are too lazy to grow your own food. Go buy a couple of acres and do it if you really want to. But it isn't societies fault that you don't.
Quote:
or attain my own land,
Much of this country owns their own land. Why don't you?

because i was born poor. but trust me, you dont want me to take money buy force anymore than i want to take it by force

Quote:
society means paying for things i dont use, to subject myself to a system where i will be forced to compete against people who have clear and definite advantages (being set up to fail), to see people enjoying society with these advantages, to be seen as an outcast because of my disadvantages, to be set up to fail, and be punished for that failure, society to me means sacrifice for nothing, police do not protect me,
You are unable to buy your own land but you think somehow if you were given free land you could defend it yourself against all comers while still finding the time to grow your own food and do your own doctoring? You don't understand that even without government you would STILL have to buy or somehow take land from the person owning it. As Locke says, government was formed to help defend property so you don't have to spend all your time doing that. Without government if you had land you would have no security that you could keep that land.

without government there would be no group of people capable of taking my land, because a group of people banding together to force others to do something is exactly what a government is.
Quote:

doctors will save my life but in doing so subject me to further monetary debt of which i already struggle to evade, we are PAYING FOR A WAR IN IRAQ, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA DO NOT WANT THIS WAR, by your definitions, society is a failure already.
I never said the social contract always works well.

Quote:

PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO BE CITED FOR CROSSING THE STREET AT THE WRONG AREA (how exactly is this benifiting society again?),
Ever think that it protects you from being run over and traffic freom being completely stopped because fools are being run over?

I know how to look both ways LOL. this law is garbage and unnecessary.

Quote:

ANYMORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR INGESTING CERTAIN CHEMICALS, THE SOCIETY OF TODAY IS A FAR CRY FROM (**** caps lock!) what locke is describing. if society was how locke "described" it i would have no qualms about it, but it is not. "society" today does whats best for the rich, for the priviledged, not for the general population, the working class.
I can agree somewhat but it is we the working class that has allowed that by buying into some of the arguments like "the rich create jobs."

Quote:

Society does not benifit me, society benifits from me. Oh yeah, clean drinking water with so much chlorine in it i want to puke, so i provide my own, food with hormones and chemicals, contant pollution, destruction of the environment, this is what society brings me?
Actually society has worked to restrict those items. Imagine a world where people could pollute as much as they wanted without government to stop them. Somehow you are under the impression that government causes all those problems when in reality government helps to mitigate them.

I disagree, in reality our government is ran on bribes, ergo a company making profits bribes the government and VOILA, you have a government supporting and or covering up certain things (the FDA pharmaceutical company relationship for example, or dumping waste
not to mention that without a gov't there would be no money so entities with the capacity to pollute would be minimal, infrastructure would be insanely hard to keep up a company off barter and trade.)


Quote:

This is what i should sacrafice freedom for? for contant destruction and exploitation of our home? twisting and deformation, abuse, neglect and incompetency in creation of new laws? for obvious corruption that goes unpunished yet, i am held accountable for the most minor of offenses?
To see police break the law every day, supposed defenders of the law, with impunity, to fear the law more than i fear the adverse effects of not having said laws?
You really need to get over the ticket you got for jaywalking. It's eating you up.
Quote:

Sure, society is awesome.
It's better than being dead because someone bigger than you wanted the skin you were wearing, don't you think?

someone bigger than me would still have a hard time taking me out, in fact i have been jumped a few occasions and had them run from me. i am not what you would call "weak" though i am quite skinny.
Quote:

i will quote aristotle "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."

Wow, couldn't have said it better. If it werent for females i would leave society in a heartbeat.
There you have it then. You don't really want to live on your own. You have accepted the social contract to be around females. Locke was correct after all.


i havent accepted any contract, i have accepted the cirucumstances i was forced into , though.

this is a great debate btw.

shifts over gotta run seeya round
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 09:24 am
My compliments to the people who craft well reasoned yet opposing POV's to Davids (always) half-assed questions
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 06:08 pm
roger wrote:
David, I think you're wrong. You can get nearly anyone to concede the right of self defense. Problem is, you cannot get so many to support the means of defending oneself.
It's as if we're all supposed to be in our mid twenties, large of stature,
and athletic by nature.

Yes.
If the victims became skilled at using PILLOWS
to smother predatory felons,
the suppressionists of freedom wud demand that
their pillows be licensed , in the discretion of police,
and registered, or prohibited,
so that the poor criminals cud rob and murder the affluent with on-the-job safety.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 06:37 pm
I look upon John Locke as being a friend of liberty.
I am confident that he 'd support the 2nd Amendment
with better enthusiasm than the NRA does.


In my opinion,
John Locke wud take an absolutist position
as to the 2nd Amendment, as I do ( i.e., that control of guns was put beyond the reach of government,
the same as government has no authority to choose your favorite color for u ).


Let us take note that the essence of John Locke 's thought,
as expressed in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government
most significantly, was that HUMAN EXISTENCE preceded
the existence of government. Government had NO rights, no power and no authority,
before INDIVIDUALS brought it into existence
( as an imaginary entity, like lines of latitude n longitude ).
When those individuals created it, by contract among themselves,
it had only* those authorities which thay GRANTED to it;
( the same way that when a bank teller is hired, he is granted a salary,
but the money in the vault is supposed to be left alone ).
Powers that were not granted to government
( for instance power to curtail free speech, to curtail freedom of religion,
to curtail freedom of assembly, to curtail free press or to curtail the right to bear arms,
not only individually, but also in concert with your neighbors ) were BEYOND THE REACH of government.

That was not enuf:
the Founders went to the trouble of explicitly
declaring free speech and the right to bear arms to be off limits to government,
in the Bill of Rights, and thay did not agree to ratify the Constitution without those protections.

Accordingly, gun control can only exist BY USURPATION of ultra vires authority,
the same as a bank teller secretly snatching some cash from the vault
on his way home.


* See 9th and 10th Amendments US Constitution


David




.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 06:57 pm
farmerman wrote:
My compliments to the people who craft well reasoned yet
opposing POV's to Davids (always) half-assed questions

That 's OK, farmer.

I don 't take your insolence personally.
I know that it only erupts forth from
the unrelenting abhorence in which u hold personal liberty.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:52 pm
Nonsense, Don Quixote - he just thinks you're silly.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 01:35 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Quote:
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a psychiatric condition characterized by an individual's common disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others. Antisocial personality disorder is terminology used by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, while the World Health Organization's ICD-10 refers to Dissocial personality disorder. People diagnosed with this disorder are typically called Sociopaths.


Antisocial Personality Disorder = sociopath = psychopath
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 01:48 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I look upon John Locke as being a friend of liberty.
I am confident that he 'd support the 2nd Amendment
with better enthusiasm than the NRA does.


In my opinion,
John Locke wud take an absolutist position
as to the 2nd Amendment, as I do ( i.e., that control of guns was put beyond the reach of government,
the same as government has no authority to choose your favorite color for u ).


Let us take note that the essence of John Locke 's thought,
as expressed in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government
most significantly, was that HUMAN EXISTENCE preceded
the existence of government. Government had NO rights, no power and no authority,
before INDIVIDUALS brought it into existence
( as an imaginary entity, like lines of latitude n longitude ).
When those individuals created it, by contract among themselves,
it had only* those authorities which thay GRANTED to it;
( the same way that when a bank teller is hired, he is granted a salary,
but the money in the vault is supposed to be left alone ).
Powers that were not granted to government
( for instance power to curtail free speech, to curtail freedom of religion,
to curtail freedom of assembly, to curtail free press or to curtail the right to bear arms,
not only individually, but also in concert with your neighbors ) were BEYOND THE REACH of government.

That was not enuf:
the Founders went to the trouble of explicitly
declaring free speech and the right to bear arms to be off limits to government,
in the Bill of Rights, and thay did not agree to ratify the Constitution without those protections.

Accordingly, gun control can only exist BY USURPATION of ultra vires authority,
the same as a bank teller secretly snatching some cash from the vault
on his way home.


* See 9th and 10th Amendments US Constitution


David




.


i AGREE, I ACTUALLY wtf caps, like john locke, but i think the constitution and john lockes views apply much more to the old days, corruption is TOO RAMPANT NOWDAYS AND POWER (wtf?) is too easy to maintain illegitimately (i.e. bribes, threats, shadow gov't etc) but in the end the gov't cant screw us over to much because we are what gives it power.

I wonder if everyone knows how game-breakingly awesome our next president is going to have to be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 04:43:44