Blurred Lines: Total Privatization and Government


Recommended Posts

I know it when I see it. That's the most you're going to get out of me.

Is that an unwillingness to define your terms or an inability? Just curious.

More an inability. I don't think I can layout a definition if doing so will get me into situations where my opponent can say "Ha! That doesn't match your definition!" and deprive me of the chance to revise it. I mean, I think most people know what it means to speak of government and I'd think it would be obvious that anarcho-capitalism's form of government isn't anarchy but kritarchy (rule by judges).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're qualified, BTW, to sit on the SCOTUS???

Are you suggesting he sit on his balls (his scrotum?) Now considering how painful that is - that is just plain mean. Isn't it odd how a man so infrequently squishes them after the first time?

Uhhhh...?

Peter trying to be funny here is like watching an elephant in a china shop.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it when I see it. That's the most you're going to get out of me.

Is that an unwillingness to define your terms or an inability? Just curious.

More an inability. I don't think I can layout a definition if doing so will get me into situations where my opponent can say "Ha! That doesn't match your definition!" and deprive me of the chance to revise it. I mean, I think most people know what it means to speak of government and I'd think it would be obvious that anarcho-capitalism's form of government isn't anarchy but kritarchy (rule by judges).

Thank you for the new word.

--Brant

kritarchy, kritarchy, kritarchy, kritarchy (my spell checker doesn't think much of it), kritarchy . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it when I see it. That's the most you're going to get out of me.

Is that an unwillingness to define your terms or an inability? Just curious.

More an inability. I don't think I can layout a definition if doing so will get me into situations where my opponent can say "Ha! That doesn't match your definition!" and deprive me of the chance to revise it. I mean, I think most people know what it means to speak of government and I'd think it would be obvious that anarcho-capitalism's form of government isn't anarchy but kritarchy (rule by judges).

Thank you for the new word.

--Brant

kritarchy, kritarchy, kritarchy, kritarchy (my spell checker doesn't think much of it), kritarchy . . .

Looks like the Jews are involved in this one...

Kritarchy n. The rule of the judges over Israel. "Samson, Jephthah, Gideon, and other heroes of the kritarchy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Kritarchy, should never be confused with Kratocracy:

Kratocracy, (from the Greek κρατερός krateros, meaning "strong"), is, according to Montague,[1] government by those who are strong enough to seize power through force or cunning. The term was used by Kropotkin in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, but is now rarely seen.

A...

Montague and Kropotkin, now there are some great lead off hitters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More an inability. I don't think I can layout a definition if doing so will get me into situations where my opponent can say "Ha! That doesn't match your definition!" and deprive me of the chance to revise it. I mean, I think most people know what it means to speak of government and I'd think it would be obvious that anarcho-capitalism's form of government isn't anarchy but kritarchy (rule by judges).

Anarcho-capitalism does not say that there should be no rules (or rule) but no coercive monopoly on law enforcement and adjudication.

And, by the way, if you're entitled to avoid definitions, so is everybody else, including those subscribing to anarcho-capitalism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which leads us to Krapocracy which is:

the seizing of total power over citizens through absolute stupidity**** and incompetence.

You know, the Administration of President Barack Hussein O'bama [aka __________________].

A...

****

LONDON --- It was one of the more original defense strategies in Britain’s phone hacking trial: The lawyer representing Rebekah Brooks’s husband, Charles, told the jury that his client was simply too “stupid” to have committed the crime he was accused of, conspiring with his wife and others to pervert the course of justice by hiding evidence.

It worked. Mr. Brooks was acquitted in June, along with his wife, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire. But his “stupidity” came back to bite him on Wednesday, to the tune of $800,000.

After his acquittal, Mr. Brooks applied to the trial court to be reimbursed by the government for the legal costs of his defense. But Justice John Saunders was having none of it. Mr. Brooks’s behavior, the judge said, may not have been criminal, but it was so “incredibly stupid” that he wasn’t entitled to a penny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/world/europe/in-britain-stupidity-defense-has-a-drawback.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More an inability. I don't think I can layout a definition if doing so will get me into situations where my opponent can say "Ha! That doesn't match your definition!" and deprive me of the chance to revise it. I mean, I think most people know what it means to speak of government and I'd think it would be obvious that anarcho-capitalism's form of government isn't anarchy but kritarchy (rule by judges).

Anarcho-capitalism does not say that there should be no rules (or rule) but no coercive monopoly on law enforcement and adjudication.

And, by the way, if you're entitled to avoid definitions, so is everybody else, including those subscribing to anarcho-capitalism!

It's still all palaver--what should be might be but none of it could be.

--Brant

government is force--disowned private force--get rid of it and another form takes its place which in turn will be called "government"

freedom is the top value, not utopian perfection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching an elephant in a china shop??? Its bull. Bull in a China Shop. And China should be capitalized if you are talking about a real estate office in Beijing. The topic is blurred lines. Im chortling so I must be funny.

Bull.

--Brant

you said it first--I was just trying to avoid the cliche [disingenuous alert!--ed.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching an elephant in a china shop??? Its bull. Bull in a China Shop. And China should be capitalized if you are talking about a real estate office in eijing. The topic is blurred lines. Im chortling so I must be funny.

Thsi is the woman who owns the China elephantbeauty.jpgchina broken glass shop since she hired me...

She fell in love with my trunk...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still all palaver--what should be might be but none of it could be.

--Brant

government is force--disowned private force--get rid of it and another form takes its place which in turn will be called "government"

freedom is the top value, not utopian perfection

Yes, let's concentrate on the top value of making everybody 100% free and let the utopians pursue their impossible dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still all palaver--what should be might be but none of it could be.

--Brant

government is force--disowned private force--get rid of it and another form takes its place which in turn will be called "government"

freedom is the top value, not utopian perfection

Yes, let's concentrate on the top value of making everybody 100% free and let the utopians pursue their impossible dreams.

Irony is not an argument nor is altruism in the pursuit of freedom rational action. You start with yourself and yours and expand as you can off that base primarily for your benefit. There's all kind of room for philosophy and reason, needed or you'll end up like the US Navy, fighting for "democracy and freedom around the world."

--Brant

or just fighting for fighting's sake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Yes, let's concentrate on the top value of making everybody 100% free and let the utopians pursue their impossible dreams.

end quote

How about some reality TV as on the show Survivor, where there is no government with a coercive monopoly on the retaliatory use of force? It would need to be on an island of course. In the movie Papillion Steve McQueen, Dustin Hoffman and their fellow prisoners carve out a society of sorts. Wouldnt a reality show be cool, as long as the deck is not stacked? By stacked I mean selecting a group of people already under the influence of a *leader-guru,* or similar in some fashion. It would be interesting to see what society evolves in ten out of ten cases. Oh wait. Couldnt we just examine history and pre-history to know what is going to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now