Journal of the Blastocrat

Application of Judges 19-20 in a Modern Society

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:45:00 +0000

The 19th and 20th chapters of the Book of Judges in the Bible deals with a conflict between the tribes of Israel, and is sometimes used to justify the existence of a State (that is, an entity which is a monopolist having the power to tax and decide matters of law within its borders).

The 19th chapter deals with the case itself. Verses 1-12 deal with the initial reasons of why the parties concerned were in Gibeah: a Levite, who lived in "the hill country of Ephraim" (Verse 1), had a concubine, formerly of Bethlehem in the land of Judah. The concubine had run back to her father's house in Bethlehem, and the Levite went to get her.

To give an overview of the territory involved, the region of Ephraim was in the centre of Israel's territory, extending from Bethel (now known as Beit El), 11 miles to the north of Jerusalem (then still known as Jebus), to the valley of Jezreel, close to 7 miles south-west of Nazareth, in the far north of Israel. It is unknown where the Levite lived exactly, but he may have lived in the north-east frontier.

Travelling south with a servant and a donkey, the Levite meets with his concubine and her father, with whom he stays four full days, and stays part of a fifth day. Toward the end of the fifth day, being almost evening (Verse 9), the Levite leaves with his concubine, and the servant and donkey. When they near Jebus, his servant suggests (Verse 11) they stay there. However, Jebus is a Caananite city, and the Levite does not want to stay there (Verse 12). The Levite suggests Gibeah or Ramah, both cities of Benjamin, about equally distant from Jebus, each being about 3 miles from it. At this point, it would be nearing dusk.

Another hour or so later, probably at dusk, the party arrives in Gibeah, but are refused entrance to various houses (Verse 15). Giving up, they settle in the town square. However, an old man who is coming in from the field (Verse 16), which is how we know it is probably sunset or just after, sees them in the town square and questions them: "Where are you going? Where did you come from?" (Verse 17).

The Levite gives his response: he is a Levite, coming from Bethlehem to a remote area of Ephraim which he identifies as his home. He further says that no one will take him and his party into their home, though they have provisions with them (Verses 18-19). The old man welcomes them into his home, and tells them he will give them whatever they need, and cautions them not to remain in the town square (Verse 20). Whether he knew the locals or was just being polite--or being cautious--is debatable.

Verses 22-29 deal with the crime. Some men (it is not known how many, but there were more than three) surrounded the house and demanded the old man give up his guest so that they might have sex with him (Verse 22). Attempting to placate the mob, the host offers them his daughter and the man's concubine (Verse 23). The men would not listen to the old man, so the Levite sent out his concubine himself, whom the mob raped and abused throughout the night (Verse 25). She returned to the house where her husband was staying at dawn, and remained there until the day proper began (Verse 26).

The Levite discovers her on the step, and when she does not respond, presumes her dead. He takes her home, cuts up her body into 12 pieces, and sends them to every tribe of Israel as a message.

In Chapter 20, the Israelites gather at Mizpah, near Gibeah. When questioned about his gruesome message, the Levite gives his answer to the assembly, and asks for their verdict, which is to demand the men of the city of Gibeah for justice. The tribe of Benjamin refuses to yield, however, and instead prepares for battle. The rest of the chapter deals with the battle itself, which, suffice it to say, does not end in favour of Benjamin.

Now, let us apply this to a modern society. First, let us presume the lack of a territorial monopolist entity--a State. What does the nature of law look like in this example? I will use Hans-Hermann Hoppe's postulation that insurance companies will provide security of life and property (On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution). Let us further assume that the parties involved are covered by insurance companies.

A man is travelling to Footon, to retrieve his runaway bride. Because of traffic delays, he spends the night in Barford. Men assault his hotel room and demand he come out so that they may have sex with him. Instead, his bride is taken, whom they rape for the night, until she is dead. He discovers this in the morning, and notifies her insurance agent, who we will call Agent X, of her death.

Agent X contacts the other insurance agent, who we will call Agent Y, who is covering the perpetrators of the rape and murder, but Agent Y refuses to give them up for justice. Let us suppose that Agency A and Agency B, for which Agent X and Agent Y work for, respectively, had an agreement to turn over those persons who caused the event that triggered the other agency's involvement for justice. This would indeed happen, as any agency which did not agree to such an arrangement would be considered an out-law or renegade, and would not be able to reliably protect its citizens unless it held a monopolistic, hegemonic market share--and, as Herbert Dow proved, monopolies always crumble in the face of free competition.

What happens? In the minds of some, without a territorial monopolist to coerce action on Agent Y and Agency B, nothing will happen. However, that is not the case. Recall what happened when foreign debtors defaulted on their debts, as with Mississippi (Debt and Repudiation in Mississippi, Clifford F. Thies). The threat of gunboats off their shores, or armies on their borders, arose, in order to force payment.

In a Stateless society, this would also happen to those who refused to honour their obligations. Foreign invasion, with a distinct objective of forcing debt payment, would ensue if demands were not met (and, this not being a democratic state but an anarchistic one, matters of war would be conducted by the agency and not the whole society, thus removing the concept of total war from the equation; Reflections on State and War, Hans-Hermann Hoppe). In the interests of peace, then, it is more than reasonable to assume that agencies will maintain their agreements with one another to deliver unto justice those who violate their contracts.

#d megafail

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:39:00 +0000

This is a really long one, and painful to get through. But, consider this my contribution to last Sunday's homework question.

[16:32:30] <+Chevrokia> most recent post
[16:32:35] <+Chevrokia> the person has a parental license
[16:33:05] <+Chevrokia> and apparently in their country you can legally start a business before you can legally have kids
[16:33:07] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:33:32] * +Talost|Kargucagstan has parental licences
[16:33:42] <+Chevrokia> tyranny
[16:33:46] <+Blast> tyranny
[16:33:55] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> it's madness not to
[16:34:03] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Look at all these impoverished children that have no chance at life
[16:34:07] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> better they not be born
[16:34:09] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:34:16] <@Catalan> ...
[16:34:28] <@Catalan> And bad parents are what makes that happen?
[16:34:44] <+Blast> http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16752&p=606194#p606194 libertad amirite chev
[16:34:54] <+Chevrokia> urrite
[16:36:39] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> back. Yes, bad parents are responsible for most of that
[16:36:55] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> the poor, genetically disabled, etc, should not be allowed to breed
[16:37:09] <+Chevrokia> i suppose i should have expected such a response
[16:37:15] <+Blast> wow, you're retarded. and i mean that in a very caring way.
[16:37:30] <+Chevrokia> talost hates the poor
[16:37:33] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> how is it justice to allow someone to be born into such a hell?
[16:37:43] <+Chevrokia> obviously he's a member of the oppressing bourgeoisie class
[16:38:30] <@Catalan> How do you know that the poor live in some type of hell?
[16:38:44] <@Catalan> You only assume they do, because you are incapable of knowing what life is without being pampered.
[16:38:52] <@Catalan> How do you know that the child prefer not to be born?
[16:39:11] <@Catalan> Why not solve the root of the problem, which is government in the first place, and allow every person to make a living wage/
[16:39:41] <@Catalan> Are you telling me that the majority of Africans rather never been born? I think you are sadly mistaken.
[16:39:46] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> That's true, I have not experienced poverty. But I'm not blind. I've seen with my own eyes that they do not have the knowledge or experience to pull themselves out of poverty, and having kids only makes it worse
[16:40:22] <@Catalan> What do you mean they don't have the knowledge or the experience?
[16:40:23] * Crimmond (00starock0@adsl-214-192-115.jax.bellsouth.net) has joined #draftroom
[16:40:31] <@Catalan> You don't have the faintest clue on what it takes to escape poverty.
[16:40:37] <+Chevrokia> because obviously forcing the majority of the earth's population to die off is a good solution
[16:40:38] <+Doom> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Doomingsland/stug-1.png y/n
[16:40:41] <@Catalan> You assume that the poor has some genetic inability to make money.
[16:40:41] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> For example, studies have shown that the majority of poor people live well beyond their means
[16:40:45] <@Catalan> The only genetic inability is your brain.
[16:40:54] <+Chevrokia> wat doom
[16:40:55] * Catalan sets mode: +v Crimmond
[16:40:58] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> They buy TVs when they should be working, they gambling and drink
[16:41:02] <+Chevrokia> ...
[16:41:04] <+Chevrokia> talost
[16:41:06] <+Chevrokia> that's not poverty
[16:41:08] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Gamble*
[16:41:16] <@Catalan> And the rich don't squander their money?
[16:41:16] <+Chevrokia> not real poverty
[16:41:21] * +Mondoth|goml|Stormy (Dr_Undersc@utdpat242007.utdallas.edu) Quit (Quit: Mrs. Thatcher used to run the country drunk sometimes, and it was fine! Except when she told the army to 'Chop off Scotland'. -Shelly Winters, Scary go Round)
[16:41:25] <@Catalan> What about the thousands of rich who have squandered their incomes and become poor?
[16:41:26] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> the rich can afford to
[16:41:31] <@Catalan> No they can't.
[16:41:31] <@Catalan> You're an idiot.
[16:41:34] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I'm not saying they should, but they can
[16:41:38] <@Catalan> If you live beyond your means, that means you're spending more than what you make.
[16:41:40] <@Catalan> You are still taking a net loss.
[16:41:48] <@Catalan> There are thousands of rich who have become poor overnight.
[16:41:48] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> No, I mean gambling and drinking
[16:41:53] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> nobody should live beyond their means
[16:41:57] <@Catalan> You have no idea what you are talking about.
[16:41:58] <@Catalan> No shit.
[16:42:00] <@Catalan> The rich don't gamble?
[16:42:02] <+Chevrokia> talost you realize that the government has historically enabled this to happen with poor people
[16:42:05] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> of course they do
[16:42:09] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Yes Chev, I do
[16:42:11] <@Catalan> But, the point is that it's not something distinct of the poor to live beyond your means.
[16:42:35] <@Catalan> And, that still does not address teh fact that I'm sure that most poor people who have preferred to be given life than to be aborted.
[16:42:59] <@Catalan> 4/5 of all poor go from the bottom quintile to the top two income quintiles within ten years.
[16:43:12] <@Catalan> There goes your theory on how the poor are incapable of advancing in life.
[16:43:26] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> What I'm saying Cat, is not that the poor live beyond their means more than the rich, although I haven't seen data to support either side, but that the rich have more wiggle room. Also, I'm not advocating abortions, just mandatory sterilization
[16:43:36] <@Catalan> That doesn't make any sense, Talost.
[16:43:43] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> sure it does
[16:43:46] <@Catalan> There is no such thing as wiggle room when you are living beyond your means.
[16:43:48] <@Catalan> No it doesn't.
[16:44:00] <@Catalan> And, like you admit, you have no statistics to show that you are correct.
[16:44:06] <@Catalan> You are making wild and incorrect assumptions.
[16:44:14] <@Catalan> I have already provided you a stastistic
[16:44:15] <+Chevrokia> talost if somebody spends 140% of their income
[16:44:20] <@Catalan> [13:43] 4/5 of all poor go from the bottom quintile to the top two income quintiles within ten years.
[16:44:26] <+Chevrokia> it doesn't matter if their income is $10K a year or $10 million a year
[16:44:32] <+Chevrokia> it's still 140%
[16:44:33] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> prove it Cat
[16:44:34] <@Catalan> You are still MAKING A LOSS
[16:44:49] <@Catalan> Thomas DiLorenzo, "How Capitalism Saved America"
[16:44:56] <@Catalan> That's where the statistic if from.
[16:45:01] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> What I'm saying, Chev, is that if you're wealthy enough to be making $10 m a year, you've got savings, you've got some financial know-how. You can figure out you're losing money
[16:45:06] <+Chevrokia> ...
[16:45:08] <+Chevrokia> you don't get it
[16:45:10] <@Catalan> You're making that assumption.
[16:45:11] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Cat, site some non-propaganda
[16:45:12] <+Chevrokia> if you're spending beyond your means
[16:45:17] <+Chevrokia> your savings are irrelevant
[16:45:19] <@Catalan> How is it propaganda?
[16:45:21] <@Catalan> You're an idiot.
[16:45:24] <+Chevrokia> because you're losing money
[16:45:27] <@Catalan> You prob. don't even think things through before you say them.
[16:45:37] <@Catalan> The poor don't have savings?
[16:45:38] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> ad hominem much?
[16:45:40] <@Catalan> Fucking Christ
[16:45:51] <@Catalan> How does I not understand proportions?
[16:46:04] <+Chevrokia> also, figuring out you're losing money does not automatically lead to stopping loss of money
[16:46:07] <+Chevrokia> for rich or poor people
[16:46:12] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> that's true, Chev
[16:46:22] <+Chevrokia> you have to make the decision to stop spending money
[16:46:28] <+Chevrokia> which would mean living within your means
[16:46:31] <@Catalan> Something the poor are better at
[16:46:35] <@Catalan> Since it's usually spend or die
[16:47:05] <@Catalan> The majority of poor advance to the top two income quintiles.
[16:47:12] <@Catalan> They are replaced by immigrants, who go through the same cycle.
[16:47:19] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I want to see the statistics, not the second-hand book it'
[16:47:21] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> s from
[16:47:32] <@Catalan> Those who can't advance are because of government regulation of the social contract between the employer or the employee?
[16:47:32] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> cite*
[16:47:33] <@Catalan> What does it matter?
[16:47:37] <@Catalan> I have already cited the statistics.
[16:47:58] <@Catalan> "I don't trust your source, because it's not convenient and anything pro-Capitalist is obvsly. wrong."
[16:48:03] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> no, you've cited the book you got them from. I want the study. I want to see who the guy who conducted it works for, what's his angle
[16:48:13] <@Catalan> Why don't you read the book and figure it out yourself?
[16:48:18] <@Catalan> You're the one who put up the inane argument.
[16:48:26] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Because I shouldn't have to read the whole book for one study
[16:48:27] <@Catalan> "I have no statistics, but I'm not going to trust yours either."
[16:48:31] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:48:33] <@Catalan> ...
[16:48:57] <+Chevrokia> how do you expect any sort of comprehension of the topic, talost?
[16:49:00] <@Catalan> Chev
[16:49:07] <@Catalan> If the poor can't breed, then who works for the rich?
[16:49:14] <+Chevrokia> this is a valid point
[16:49:18] <@Catalan> Every1 in Talost is poor
[16:49:22] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> ideally, there wouldn't be any rich either, but you didn't ask that
[16:49:25] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:49:27] <@Catalan> wat
[16:49:31] <@Catalan> more nonsense
[16:49:35] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> redistribution
[16:49:39] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:49:40] <@Catalan> o.O
[16:49:46] * MeneerOseato is now known as MeneerOseato|Out
[16:49:47] <@Catalan> Then how do you produce anything?
[16:49:51] <+Chevrokia> so you want to make everybody equally poor?
[16:49:52] <@Catalan> What is the incentive to invest?
[16:50:01] <+Chevrokia> because that's what income redistribution does
[16:50:01] <@Catalan> Chev, it's an elaborate genocide.
[16:50:11] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> The incentive is that it's illegal not to produce. It's fine if you don't, but you die
[16:50:13] <+Chevrokia> i mean
[16:50:17] <+Chevrokia> you kill off the poor
[16:50:21] <@Catalan> What...
[16:50:24] <+Chevrokia> then make the other people less rich
[16:50:28] <+Chevrokia> which makes them the new poor
[16:50:35] <+Chevrokia> thus you'll have to kill them too
[16:50:40] <@Catalan> That's tantamount to Communism and we all see how well that went.
[16:50:46] <@Catalan> Even the Soviet Union had to cater to the rich.
[16:50:59] <@Catalan> In societies where they didn't, like early colonies in the Americas, everyone tended to die.
[16:51:03] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> that failed because of the leadership, not the concept. Communism isn't viable at all, but Socialism is
[16:51:07] <+Chevrokia> ...
[16:51:12] <@Catalan> http://www.economicthought.net/2009/08/taxes-discourage-production/
[16:51:19] <@Catalan> No, it failed because of the concept.
[16:51:34] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> The concept depends on people being selfless, which we are not
[16:51:34] <@Catalan> Socialism eliminates the incentive to invest in your property.
[16:51:40] <@Catalan> No it doesn't.
[16:51:51] <@Catalan> It depends on the lack of realism.
[16:51:51] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Norway, Cat. Sweden. Denmark. Happiest people on earth
[16:51:54] <+Chevrokia> ...
[16:51:56] <+Chevrokia> LOL
[16:51:58] <@Catalan> Those are not pure socialists countries.
[16:52:02] <@Catalan> And they are becoming very poor.
[16:52:09] <@Catalan> You are making assumptions while not even researching your position.
[16:52:15] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> please
[16:52:21] <@Catalan> You are continuously spouting nonsense.
[16:52:40] <@Catalan> Next you'll tell me how France has the best health care system in the world.
[16:52:44] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> It's funny, because from my standpoint I'm seeing the same thing. Funny how that works, isn't it?
[16:52:44] <@Catalan> Despite the fact that it's going bankrupt.
[16:52:55] <@Catalan> You are ignoring logical arguments.
[16:53:05] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> In my eyes, you are as well
[16:53:07] <@Catalan> Whenever I state a source you say that it's not partial enough, and dismissi t.
[16:53:16] <@Catalan> [13:50] The incentive is that it's illegal not to produce. It's fine if you don't, but you die
[16:53:18] <@Catalan> That is not logical.
[16:53:21] <@Catalan> [13:51] that failed because of the leadership, not the concept. Communism isn't viable at all, but Socialism is
[16:53:22] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> How so?
[16:53:25] <@Catalan> That is not logical.
[16:53:38] * Preston (Mibbit@IR11104.fau.edu) has joined #draftroom
[16:53:39] <@Catalan> How do you make lack of production illegal?
[16:53:44] <@Catalan> How do you define what lack of production is?
[16:53:48] <@Catalan> You have no economic sense.
[16:53:50] * Doc_evilonaPC (doc.evilon@78.155.225.147) has joined #draftroom
[16:54:01] <+Crimmond> niether do teh French
[16:54:07] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> What do you mean, Cat?
[16:54:08] <+Chevrokia> talost who's going to carry out the production if you kill off the poor
[16:54:10] <+Crimmond> who want to make happiness part of the GDP
[16:54:20] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> They won't all die, Chev
[16:54:22] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:54:26] <+Doom> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Doomingsland/stug-1.png < guise D: [16:54:28] <@Catalan> You are making it illegal for them to reproduce.
[16:54:28] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> you work, you live
[16:54:31] <+Chevrokia> you said they shouldn't be able to breed
[16:54:35] <+Chevrokia> eventually they'll die
[16:54:39] <+Chevrokia> and have no children
[16:54:44] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Right
[16:54:52] <+Chevrokia> thus no factory workers
[16:54:54] * +Doc_evilonavich (doc.evilon@95.83.195.115) Quit (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
[16:54:57] <@Catalan> The only system that can work is one with unregulated social contracts.
[16:55:01] <@Catalan> That is, Capitalism.
[16:55:09] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> if the jobs available are in the factory, there's factory workers
[16:55:11] <@Catalan> It regulates itself.
[16:55:11] * Mondoth|goml (chatzilla@rrcs-97-77-52-74.sw.biz.rr.com) has joined #draftroom
[16:55:18] <@Catalan> Those that cannot produce to live will either die or live off of charity.
[16:55:29] <@Catalan> But, 99% have already proven that they can work to live.
[16:55:32] * Catalan sets mode: +vvv Doc_evilonaPC Mondoth|goml Preston
[16:55:55] <+Chevrokia> so what exactly is the point of killing off the poor, then, talost?
[16:55:57] <@Catalan> [13:55] if the jobs available are in the factory, there's factory workers <- there has to be an existing pool of labor [16:56:06] <@Catalan> This pool of labor is eradicated if you do not allow them to breed.
[16:56:15] <@Catalan> Chev
[16:56:17] <@Catalan> There is no point
[16:56:22] <@Catalan> It's another one of his misguided theories
[16:56:47] <@Catalan> Like the one where he said he didn't understand why rape was worse than assault.
[16:56:52] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> What I'm advocating is first, total redistribution. If you cannot work, you are fully supported. If you can work, you do. If you can and you don't, you are killed. Everyone that lives, works, so there's people to do the jobs
[16:56:58] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I do understand now, Cat
[16:57:00] <+Chevrokia> um
[16:57:06] <+Chevrokia> "if you cannot work"
[16:57:10] * Franberry (chatzilla@190.244.69.84) has joined #draftroom
[16:57:10] <@Catalan> What does total redistribution mean?
[16:57:11] <+Chevrokia> what are the definitions of this
[16:57:18] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Franberry
[16:57:22] <@Catalan> Who will make new jobs for those who can't work if they are having their income redistributed?
[16:57:24] * +TheHURD (syku@62.6.161.170) Quit (Quit: Osama's time machine: President Gore concerned.)
[16:57:25] <@Catalan> The incentive to invest is gone.
[16:57:29] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Chev, mentally handicapped or something to the point of not being able to comprehend things
[16:57:43] <+Franberry> Catalan> Who will make new jobs for those who can't work if they are having their income redistributed? <---- Peron! [16:57:46] <@Catalan> What about those who can't find employment because of income redistribution?
[16:57:54] <+Skadrii> we should just kill all the mentally handicapped people. they're clearly not contributing anything to society and deserve to die.
[16:58:02] <@Catalan> 20% of the American population should have been killed during the Great Depression.
[16:58:02] <+Franberry> Talost wats going on
[16:58:12] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I'm arguing with Catalan and Chev, Fran
[16:58:18] <@Catalan> Or, alternatively, those statistics are lies, given that if Talost is right then FDR's income redistribution should have solved the Great Depression.
[16:58:19] <+Franberry> do you want to kill the handicapped
[16:58:20] <@Catalan> 9_9
[16:58:21] <+Unreal229> so you would rather kill potentially useful people than ones who are certain to be a long term drain?
[16:58:28] <@Catalan> At one point there was 90% income tax.
[16:58:31] <@Catalan> on the rich
[16:58:45] <@Catalan> I don't understand, those who can't work will die anyways or will be supported by charity.
[16:58:49] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> No, I'm not out to kill the handicapped. Like I said, let them be fully supported. But no breeding them
[16:58:54] <+Chevrokia> wat
[16:58:55] <+Franberry> what
[16:58:56] <+Chevrokia> h/o
[16:58:59] <@Catalan> lmao
[16:59:03] <+Franberry> So you want to sterilize the handicapped?
[16:59:08] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> everyone
[16:59:12] <+Chevrokia> the poor, genetically disabled, etc, should not be allowed to breed
[16:59:12] <+Skadrii> [16:58] so you would rather kill potentially useful people than ones who are certain to be a long term drain? <<< kill them all, unreal. it's the only way to be sure our society is 100% efficient. [16:59:15] <@Catalan> o.O
[16:59:23] <+Chevrokia> you just said earlier
[16:59:29] <@Catalan> So, we all know that Kargucagstan is very poor now.
[16:59:30] <+Franberry> Talost|Kargucagstan> everyone <--- /what/ [16:59:32] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> What started this conversation is that I want to sterilize *everyone* and issue licenses to breed
[16:59:32] <+Unreal229> not what i said Skadrii
[16:59:38] <+Chevrokia> um
[16:59:40] <+Skadrii> I mean, why stop them from breeding? That's just inhumane. It'd be less cruel to kill them.
[16:59:42] <+Chevrokia> if they're sterilized
[16:59:44] <@Catalan> This is too funny.
[16:59:44] <+Chevrokia> how do they breed
[16:59:49] <+Franberry> Tube babies
[16:59:50] <+Chevrokia> HOW IS BABBY FORMED
[16:59:55] <@Catalan> I don't think he thinks things through.
[16:59:59] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Most sterilizations are reversable, that's what I'm advocating
[17:00:00] <+Franberry> Chev you can do it artificially
[17:00:09] <+Skadrii> IVF, chev
[17:00:15] <+Franberry> have DNA, ovaries and sperm reserves
[17:00:15] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> no, no
[17:00:23] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> That's not what I'm saying at all
[17:00:24] <+Franberry> Its p.crazy but its doable
[17:00:25] <+Unreal229> so there would be a black market for the precess to reverse sterilisations :P
[17:00:29] <+Skadrii> oh, you mean, like, castrate the poor?
[17:00:31] <+Unreal229> *process
[17:00:35] <+Chevrokia> yeah skad
[17:00:37] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Yup Unreal, and those that partake, die
[17:00:38] <+Skadrii> something irreversible like that?
[17:00:41] <+Chevrokia> talost wants to kill off the poor
[17:00:44] <@Catalan> So we know that his government regulates beeding and that there is no economic growth because profit is completely redistributed.
[17:00:53] <@Catalan> http://www.economicthought.net/2009/08/taxes-discourage-production/
[17:00:58] <+Unreal229> ZOMG! Talost is the combine from Half-Life!
[17:01:09] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Stalkers o/o/o/
[17:01:24] <+Franberry> You realize that a lot of the reason that people in low income brackets work hard is because they know they'll never get anything but if they save up enough they might be able to give their kid a better life?
[17:01:25] <+Unreal229> nb: combine lose!
[17:01:27] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> (those were the guys with the stilt legs)
[17:01:37] <+Franberry> if they dont have kids then they're just gonna get drunk
[17:01:40] <+Unreal229> sort of
[17:01:44] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> the problem is Fran, a lot of the poor don't work hard
[17:01:47] <+Skadrii> [17:00] So we know that his government regulates beeding and that there is no economic growth because profit is completely redistributed. <<< sounds perfectly logical, catalan [17:01:50] <@Catalan> Fran, 4/5 of the poor rise to the top two income brackets in the USA.
[17:01:54] <+Skadrii> why do you hate tyranny? I mean, freedom?
[17:02:13] <+Skadrii> [17:01] the problem is Fran, a lot of the poor don't work hard <<< [citation needed] [17:02:13] <+Franberry> Catalan> Fran, 4/5 of the poor rise to the top two income brackets in the USA. <---- what [17:02:18] <+Chevrokia> it's ironic that somebody who believes socialism can work is in favor of killing off the poor
[17:02:22] <@Catalan> They are replaced by immigrants
[17:02:33] <+Franberry> Talost|Kargucagstan> the problem is Fran, a lot of the poor don't work hard <--- Show me where this happens, honestly [17:02:35] <@Catalan> I'm trying to find the exact quote
[17:02:38] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> the poor that don't work hard*
[17:02:41] <@Catalan> He can't
[17:02:45] <@Catalan> He's making the assumption
[17:02:47] <+Allanea> Fran
[17:02:48] <+Allanea> welfare
[17:02:50] <+Allanea> that is all
[17:02:51] <+Chevrokia> aki r u here
[17:02:53] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> To be honest, no, I can't. It's my own observation
[17:02:54] <+Franberry> Any place the poor "don't work hard" is because they have no rights and are serfs
[17:02:58] <@Catalan> So income redistribution is supposed to hel[?
[17:03:14] <+Chevrokia> yeah i brought that up allanea
[17:03:20] <+Franberry> why would you redistribute the money Mac, if they would all die
[17:03:21] <+Skadrii> give money to them because they don't work? excellent logical thinking, talost
[17:03:25] <+Chevrokia> not so specifically
[17:03:31] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> no, kill them if they don't work
[17:03:40] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> otherwise they're just a drain on society
[17:03:40] <@Catalan> No
[17:03:40] <+Chevrokia> but i said that so many of the problems of the poor are because of government not due to lack of it
[17:03:42] <+Akimonad> yeh
[17:03:43] <+Skadrii> and then give the money to their corpses?
[17:03:44] <+Akimonad> i is
[17:03:48] <@Catalan> you said that they would be supported by income redistribution
[17:03:48] <+Akimonad> playin RCT2
[17:03:49] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> total utilitarianism
[17:03:58] <+Chevrokia> they're talking about boehner again
[17:04:02] <+Akimonad> lulz
[17:04:11] <@Catalan> Imagine all those who will die because companies can't invest.
[17:04:17] <+Chevrokia> apparently he's against this bill to condemn the guy who yelled "you lie" at obama
[17:04:19] <+Akimonad> they must <3 him [17:04:20] <@Catalan> So there's no employment.
[17:04:24] <+Akimonad> well yeah
[17:04:33] <+Akimonad> which is basically to distract from the healthcare thing
[17:04:39] <+Chevrokia> talost you're not advocating utilitarianism
[17:04:40] <+Skadrii> [17:03] total utilitarianism <<< how much have you actually read about utilitarianism? are you actually familiar with mill, for instance? [17:04:41] <+Chevrokia> at all
[17:04:44] <+Akimonad> i mean ffs he apologized and obama was like "w/e bro"
[17:05:01] <+Franberry> This doesnt seem like its very well thought out
[17:05:11] <+Franberry> seems like its your usual 16 year old bitching at "them lazy people"
[17:05:16] <+Skadrii> pretty much
[17:05:33] <+Franberry> LOL
[17:05:35] <+Franberry> LOL
[17:05:38] <+Franberry> "Obama Bin Lyin"
[17:05:45] <+Chevrokia> XD
[17:05:54] <+Franberry> new #d motto
[17:05:54] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> back
[17:05:59] <+Unreal229> out of curiosity Talost, how would the deathsquads be paid? would they not be a bigger drain on society to equip?
[17:06:00] <@Catalan> Skadrii, I'm pretty sure he has done absolutely no reading on any of the subjects brought up by this discussion.
[17:06:01] <+Skadrii> actual utilitarianism has nothing to do with killing people. in fact, that's rather detrimental to its overall philosophy.
[17:06:11] * Leistung (Leistung@76-195-45-75.lightspeed.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net) has joined #draftroom
[17:06:15] <+Skadrii> which is specifically based upon the "greatest happiness principle".
[17:06:19] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Hardly death squads. Police arrest criminals like any other
[17:06:41] <+Unreal229> and these people who know they face death willingly give in?
[17:06:49] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> Utilitarianism is the belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
[17:06:59] <+Chevrokia> so um
[17:07:07] <+Chevrokia> since there are more poor people than rich people
[17:07:11] <@Catalan> But you're policy is not utilitarian.
[17:07:17] <+Franberry> Talost|Kargucagstan> Hardly death squads. Police arrest criminals like any other <-- you could say this about the NKVD, the Gestapo, or the Inquisition [17:07:18] <@Catalan> You are coercing your entire population to poverty.
[17:07:20] <+Chevrokia> how does killing off the poor fit in with that
[17:07:32] <+Skadrii> [17:06] Utilitarianism is the belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few <<< not precisely, no. again, have you actually read, say, /Utilitarianism/? [17:07:55] <@Catalan> Cox and Alm have demonstrated the upward mobility of the American labor force - and the uselessness of static income distrubition statistics - as clearly as anyone has. To look at a representative socioeconomic sample of American society, the two Federal Reserve Board researchers used a Uni. of Michinga tracking study of more than 50,000 Americans that has been going on since 1968...
[17:07:57] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I'm not killing off the poor. Who said that? I'm stopping them from breeding unless they can provide for their child. And the government will help with the money it seizes from the rich
[17:07:57] <+Franberry> "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. "
[17:08:04] So can I just use it?
[17:08:05] <+Franberry> "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. " <--- YOU WANT TO STERILIZE EVERYONE [17:08:09] <+Franberry> MINUS HAPPINESS
[17:08:12] <@Catalan> Only 5 percent of families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 were still there in 1991.
[17:08:50] <@Catalan> Among the second poorest quintile in 1975, more than 70 percent had moved to a higher quintil by 1991, and one-fourth reached the top 20 percent barket.
[17:08:51] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> at first, yes, Fran. It's like Tyler Durden said, I'll carry you to the end, kicking and screaming, and in the end you'll thank me
[17:09:00] <+Chevrokia> wat
[17:09:17] <@Catalan> With education and training the rise up the incme brackets can be very swift: more than half of the families who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 made it to a higher bracket within FOUR years.
[17:09:30] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> and those people would be given licenses
[17:09:48] <+Franberry> Talost|Kargucagstan> at first, yes, Fran. It's like Tyler Durden said, I'll carry you to the end, kicking and screaming, and in the end you'll thank me <--- Fight Club? [17:09:49] <@Catalan> The study and the source are
[17:09:53] <+Skadrii> [17:08] I'm not killing off the poor. Who said that? I'm stopping them from breeding unless they can provide for their child. And the government will help with the money it seizes from the rich <<< that's one well thought-out philosophy you have there, 15-year-old future-tyrant [17:09:54] <@Catalan> Cox and Alm, "Myths of Rich and Poor"
[17:09:58] <+Franberry> Shouldn't you be citing some sort of scholar
[17:10:15] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> I could, but I'm in a Fight Club mood right now since I'm reading it
[17:10:19] <+Blast> xd czard
[17:10:33] <+Skadrii> nonsense fran, fight club is a work of immense philosophical importance, as everyone should know
[17:10:45] * Catalan sets mode: +v Leistung
[17:10:51] <+Franberry> Colombia has no tanks :O
[17:10:54] <@Catalan> Talost and Mugabe are on about the same intellectual level.
[17:10:55] <+Blast> [17:10:33] <+Skadrii> nonsense fran, fight club is a work of immense philosophical importance, as everyone should know <-- Just like everything else. [17:10:57] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> it really is a rather interesting book
[17:11:00] <+Blast> amirite?
[17:11:04] <+Skadrii> why, the American Journal of Philosophy regularly cites Fight Club in the articles it runs
[17:11:06] <+Skadrii> urrite blast
[17:11:14] <+Talost|Kargucagstan> hey, wisdom is wisdom

The obvious conclusion is to burn Fight Club. Also, all new books will have creativity totally redistributed.

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:03:00 +0000

Isaac told me earlier that I needed to stop sounding like Larry.

Wow.

That's interesting.

also, lol

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 04:24:00 +0000

Why God at all? There's not a shred of evidence for any god's existence, so why can't you move past your childhood indoctrination? You don't still believe in Santa do you? You don't realize that a magic man creating the Universe is a similarly absurd and childish belief?

His username was ReductioAdAbsurdum.

fail^fail

rough estimate of the possibility of life forming by lightning striking

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:52:00 +0000

Chances of 250 proteins aligning just so in one spot in order to form a cell: 1 in 3.0549363634996046820519793932136e+599^68001108000000000000000000^3650000000000000000000 =???

My calculator broke.

1 in 3.0549363634996046820519793932136e+599 = chances of 250 proteins aligning into a single exact sequence
1 in 68001108000000000000000000 = chances of them being in one 7.5 square micrometer area
1 in 3650000000000000000000 = chances of lightning striking at that 7.5 sq μm point given average of 10 strikes per every sq km per year

If it's wrong once, start the whole thing over again.

And people wonder why this is an abandoned conjecture among Darwinists?

tweenbots

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:27:00 +0000

Earlier today, I saw this on the Internet. I initially though it was cute, innocent, the usual pot-pourri of "aww" emotions.

Then, as is inevitable, I began to deconstruct the concept behind the tweenbot and why it was helped along.

Was it simply because we are nice people, who selflessly give aid to others in need of it? Surely none of these people could have expected a reward in money, services or goods—perhaps they were getting nothing out of it, and merely aiding the hapless golem out of a sense of communal charity?

Or, was it something more self-centred? Were they getting a psychic reward out of their service? Surely, I thought, for we do not do things without some cause, whether it is justifiable later or not, and they were not being rewarded with gumballs.

But, was this really it? What was the psychic reward that was received for doing these acts? Was it that the pedestrians again felt charitable, and felt good for being so charitable? Perhaps, but was that all? If they felt a reward for being charitable, why were they being charitable? Were they, again, simply fundamentally giving? Or were they instead pulled to help the little robot because it made them feel nurturing, or superior? The robot came with no message other than a request for aid, and was totally ideologically naked, and without a will; had it proclaimed X over Y, or Foo over Bar, would people have felt so giving? Or would they be repulsed by the idea that this robot had come with its own message, that it could not be used as a cathartic tabula rasa of sorts by those aiding it, because it had already noticeably served such a purpose?

We naturally want to think more of ourselves. This is the root cause of every moral infraction since the original, every bit of coercion, every rise of a tyrant, every abusive parent. Objects (or children) that come with no presuppositions about our character can be subconsciously molded to fit our view, and because it is private in this case, there was none to challenge the imprinting; because it was not a conscious being, the tweenbot could not fight back against this coercive molding of its purpose.

Wouldn't it be nice, I'm sure ran the thought, if we were all so innocent?

Surely it would, if only we were in charge of the imprinting.

petafail

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:42:00 +0000

Drew pointed this one out to #d.

untitled

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:40:00 +0000

now see this.

expect the worst

noreply@blogger.com (Sean) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:42:00 +0000

So how long until Flight 1549 (the one that crashed in the Hudson) becomes part of a conspiracy theory? Maybe it's the evil Republicans taking a parting shot to burden Dear L—President-elect Obama with more bad news.

You may start the countdown to triviality ... now.