Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[genocide roach]

way to go IRGC

theyre nothing but a bunch of religious thugs with government funding.
~gR~

 

[Dak]

What you said had nearly no relevance to what he was talking about either because most of his post had nothing to do with the content of those stations...but I digress, you probably saw them and went to "MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS EVIL" mode immediately, right?

I got post jumped..... I wasn't talking to Hubster on the first post.

 

[Dak]

This is a dumb thing to say when places like Colombia exist

or most of Africa.

way to go IRGC

theyre nothing but a bunch of religious thugs with government funding.
~gR~

Like the IDF?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I got post jumped..... I wasn't talking to Hubster on the first post.

I see, thanks for the edit. Anyway, don't turn into the person I just framed you as

 

[genocide roach]

Like the IDF?

the IDF is the official military. the IRGC isnt, its a group exclusively run by the ayatollah.

using your logic every military is a religious group of thugs

but yeah, not taking the bait. /responses to you on this topic
~gR~

 

[Dak]

the IDF is the official military. the IRGC isnt, its a group run by the exclusively ayatollah.

using your logic every military is a religious group of thugs

but yeah, not taking the bait. /responses to you on this topic
~gR~

Lol. Yeah, I am actually a fairly anti-military guy at this point to be active military. It's not the average military person I have the problem with, it's the upper leadership having them do fucked up shit.

 

[genocide roach]

i feel ya. i'm not anti military, but i hate the typical military stereotype and i tend to distance myself from the military image. if i dont have to go on base or associate myself with the military in public, i wont

so i guess its the average military guy who bothers me. especially the ooh ra/hua types
~gR~

 

[Dak]

so i guess its the average military guy who bothers me. especially the ooh ra/hua types
~gR~

Oh yeah, they are on a different level. And it's usually bullshit to overcompensate for being an idiot anyway.

 

[youdontknowme]

"typical Anti-American liberal statement"

:Smug:

 

[Savern]

*Typical dumb American response*

 

[Einherjar86]

Michael Moore is such a fat bastard. He talks about how shameful it is that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and yet he just keeps getting fatter. You want to make a difference Mike? Why don't you save some food for the fucking indigents.

 

[Cythraul]

It would be much less efficient. Essentially there would be mercenary-esque companies who would have to be bought out to serve basic functions we already have in the public defense system

What are you talking about? In what sense are these imagined companies mercenary-esque? Why would they have to be bought out? All protective agencies under the state of affairs described would be mercenary-esque in a sense because they would provide protective services for profit. You're going to have to clarify the sense in which these imagined companies would be mercenary-esque under your conception.

not to mention the fact that they would be then under no obligation to even do the job they were hired for, since it's a pay-to-play game and no one can stop them from this abuse, and bribery would likely be the necessary standard, which seems contemptuous and full of terrible corruption, worse than what we currently have (which isn't bad imo, and I live in a very crime-ridden city).

How is it the case that they're under no obligation to do the job they were hired for just because it's a "pay-to-play game"? And what abuse and corruption are you talking about? I don't understand what you're on about.

On that topic, how is what we have now essentially coercive? That seems like a strange claim, unless you are one of "those people" who thinks taxation is coercive (which you probably are).

It's not a strange claim at all. In fact, it's quite obviously true. I am compelled by threat of force to submit to taxation even if I do not want the services provided. That's coercive.

I don't find that people paying a bit for a consistent civil defense force is very coercive, especially compared to your alternative which glorifies corruption.

Nice bit of hyperbole there.

Also, don't you think it would be extraordinally inaccurate to judge by numbers and statistics alone how much "protection" a commonwealth under this system would even need anyway?

When did I ever make that claim?

What happens when competing interests vie for the usage of the same company for things like rallies and demonstrations? Do the rich just win out because they're rich?

Why should it be the case that someone be allowed to use somebody's private property for such purposes irrespective of whether or not the property owner wants to rent it out for such purposes?

You can argue with me about "what I may mean" for however long you want, but your lack of knowledge about how something like this could work is astounding given how much thought and time you apparently have vested in this ideology.

What the hell are you on about now? Before you were asking me about how the state of affairs in question would come about in the first place. Now you're acting like I don't know anything about how such a state of affairs would work out at all. If you don't want your rambling to confuse me then you should be consistent with what you're asking me.

I was just talking to my friend who is a poli sci major and he mentioned that there is actually a social contract which is implicit by you living in a place, that essentially states that you understand that the government can do whatever they want with the taxes, and you agree because you live there. You can move somewhere where they don't do that if you want (whereas in an anarchical commonwealth, you likely can't just go and move anywhere you want).

This "justification" is nonsense on stilts. The state's forcing me to abide by the terms of such a contract is not legitimate if the state's monopoly on force within the territory of its jurisdiction is not legitimate, and the state's legitimacy is precisely what's in question. Such a contract does not prove the legitimacy of the state's practices. Instead, the legitimacy of the state's enforcing the terms of such a contract depends on the state's legitimacy. The alleged existence of this contract simply cannot do the work that you and your friend seem to think it can. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dak]

This "justification" is nonsense on stilts. The state's forcing me to abide by the terms of such a contract is not legitimate if the state's monopoly on force within the territory of its jurisdiction is not legitimate, and the state's legitimacy is precisely what's in question. Such a contract does not prove the legitimacy of the state's practices. Instead, the legitimacy of the state's enforcing the terms of such a contract depends on the state's legitimacy. The alleged existence of this contract simply cannot do the work that you and your friend seem to think it can. Thanks for playing.

Buh-buh-buh-BAM.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

What are you talking about? In what sense are these imagined companies mercenary-esque? Why would they have to be bought out? All protective agencies under the state of affairs described would be mercenary-esque in a sense because they would provide protective services for profit. You're going to have to clarify the sense in which these imagined companies would be mercenary-esque under your conception.

You might have to clarify how your system works, lest I possibly misunderstand it more. As I see it, if you make civil defense groups into private firms that need to be hired, they are mercenaries. They are working for profit; monetary gain. That can easily, easily become corrupted as monopolies can occur, etc. and no one can do anything. Why? You don't have a legal system established...or a state that can do anything about said corruption. Big problem.

How is it the case that they're under no obligation to do the job they were hired for just because it's a "pay-to-play game"? And what abuse and corruption are you talking about? I don't understand what you're on about.

You might be a graduate philosophy student, but you evidently don't understand how humans work. If I can be hired to do something and will get paid, and don't have to do what I've been hired for because there is no actual restitution involved, I'm sure as hell going to, even just to prove your idyllic system wrong. So are 99% of people, possibly for differing reasons. I think it's up to you to prove how people in a system with no legal restitution will operate perfectly within the realms of some set yet interestingly nonexistent code of law.

It's not a strange claim at all. In fact, it's quite obviously true. I am compelled by threat of force to submit to taxation even if I do not want the services provided. That's coercive.

Well I guess you should cry about that or something then (or alternatively move or protest or start a ballot initiative...all things you have the right to do)? Sorry man, but it happens. In return, however, you get on-demand police, fire and emergency medical assistance! And plenty of other stuff that keeps everything afloat. It's NOT just all about you, sorry. I think this is one of the main reasons you like anarchy; because you're selfish. Am I right? Just to let you know, that's not how things work.[/QUOTE]

This "justification" is nonsense on stilts. The state's forcing me to abide by the terms of such a contract is not legitimate if the state's monopoly on force within the territory of its jurisdiction is not legitimate, and the state's legitimacy is precisely what's in question. Such a contract does not prove the legitimacy of the state's practices. Instead, the legitimacy of the state's enforcing the terms of such a contract depends on the state's legitimacy. The alleged existence of this contract simply cannot do the work that you and your friend seem to think it can. Thanks for playing.

As far as I'm concerned you just ranted about how our government doesn't work according to your own views. I don't particularly care what you think of it, though, and this belongs in a separate discussion.

 

[Cythraul]

You might have to clarify how your system works, lest I possibly misunderstand it more. As I see it, if you make civil defense groups into private firms that need to be hired, they are mercenaries. They are working for profit; monetary gain. That can easily, easily become corrupted as monopolies can occur, etc. and no one can do anything. Why? You don't have a legal system established...or a state that can do anything about said corruption. Big problem.

First of all, our own government can easily become corrupted and, what's more, it's not subject to genuine market competition. Second of all, we already have a monopolistic protection agency, so if you're scared of monopolies of that sort, you should be very scared of our government.

You might be a graduate philosophy student, but you evidently don't understand how humans work. If I can be hired to do something and will get paid, and don't have to do what I've been hired for because there is no actual restitution involved, I'm sure as hell going to, even just to prove your idyllic system wrong. So are 99% of people, possibly for differing reasons. I think it's up to you to prove how people in a system with no legal restitution will operate perfectly within the realms of some set yet interestingly nonexistent code of law.

You claim that I evidently don't understand how humans work, but you evidently don't understand how markets work. In a market economy, it is generally not in the interest of firms to not provide the service they're paid to provide.

It's NOT just all about you, sorry. I think this is one of the main reasons you like anarchy; because you're selfish. Am I right? Just to let you know, that's not how things work.

You can quit with your amateur psychologizing as it has no place in this discussion. If this is where the discussion is going, then I have no desire to continue.

As far as I'm concerned you just ranted about how our government doesn't work according to your own views. I don't particularly care what you think of it, though, and this belongs in a separate discussion.

What a hilarious response. What I provided was a very straightforward refutation of an argument. If you're going to keep being disingenuous, then this discussion needs to end.

 

[Dak]

You might be a graduate philosophy student, but you evidently don't understand how humans work. If I can be hired to do something and will get paid, and don't have to do what I've been hired for because there is no actual restitution involved, I'm sure as hell going to(fyp: do what I want to do), even (fyp:if)just to prove your idyllic system wrong. So are 99% of people, possibly for differing reasons. I think it's up to you to prove how people in a system with no legal restitution will operate perfectly within the realms of some set yet interestingly nonexistent code of law.

Congratulations. You just described the current US Military, (as well as Blackwater).

 

[King Richard]

@Dak and GR:

I liked the Marine Corps. I like what it stood for, the tradition, etc. What I didn't like were the shitheads who were in the Marine Corps. But honestly, you can't allow losers like that to bother you or have any affect on your time in service. That's one thing I've realized since I was discharged. Hindsight is a helluva thing. The more I look back at a lot of situations while I was in, the more I realized I tended to blow a lot of stuff out of proportion or just take it the wrong way.

I'm seriously contemplating rejoining as an officer. You don't have to take shit from anyone, especially idiotic enlisted men.

 

[Dak]

@Dak and GR:

I liked the Marine Corps. I like what it stood for, the tradition, etc. What I didn't like were the shitheads who were in the Marine Corps. But honestly, you can't allow losers like that to bother you or have any affect on your time in service. That's one thing I've realized since I was discharged. Hindsight is a helluva thing. The more I look back at a lot of situations while I was in, the more I realized I tended to blow a lot of stuff out of proportion or just take it the wrong way.

I'm seriously contemplating rejoining as an officer. You don't have to take shit from anyone, especially idiotic enlisted men.

If I came back in at a later time it would have to be as an officer. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the problem with at least the USMC, and probably the other branches, are SNCOs. The large majority are idiotic assholes.

I really get pissed at the "grenade of punishment" used by the Marine Corps. You could have been elsewhere, asleep, and someone does some dumb shit and you still get in trouble. Hasn't happened to me, but has happened to a lot of my friends.

 

[The Ozzman]

If I ever go, I could go in as an officer but I would probably enlist instead

 

[Dak]

If you happen to join the military (which I don't recommend at this point in history), doing enlisted first and then going officer gives you a ton of valuable insight on how things work that those who just go straight officer will never know.