Agna:

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and inaliable rights of another is not coersion... but justice...

1)Demonstrate that such rights exist

Sure... I exists therefore my rights exist... attempt to usurp them and see if my sacred responsibility to defend them doesn't result in my boot being shoved up your ass... If that doesn't convince you, then that works for me, as I don't require you to believe it, only to die for having usurped them.

2)Actually, it's coercion to comply with the social contract among persons to protect those 'rights'

Actually, there's no such thing as a social contract... I haven't agreed to any contract, with any society... I tend to my responsibilities and hold the rest of you accountable for your responsibilities...

But it is worth noting that you, a leftist, have questioned the existance of inalienable rights, thus proving your existance to be at contest to and your contest of those rights, therefore representing yourself as the enemy of America, a culture which exists purely and solely on nothing BUT the certainty of those rights.

Again... It should also be noted that this idiot IS Aggrevated prostate... it is a mathematical certianty that they are one in the same human being.

Odds are she's using a IP proxy... which she used during her recent ban... and has now decided that since she realized a limited success, to exploit it, and deabte herself to see how long the site will be 'fooled' by it.

It's pathetic in the extreme...

 

[Agnapostate]

Yet another reason I object to your system; I noted earlier that your powerless confederation would lack the necessary authority to enforce any decision it read, rendering the confederation itself hollow and leaving only a number of competing States. Such a situation breeds conflict and leaves the system ripe for takeover from either internal or external authoritarian and tyrannical elements.

There is no "powerless confederation" to speak of. I've already noted the presence of libertarian organizational principles in the case of the Spanish anarchist militias (such as the Durruti Column) and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (Black Army) commanded by Nestor Makhno, which protected the libertarian Free Territory of Ukraine. I am not going to repeat what's already been said if you choose to ignore it. However, to provide a quick summary offered by Mikhail Bakunin:

The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which come to accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations. Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which is directed by a war committee, on which the delegates from the centurias have their say. . . although every column retains its freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of forces, which is not the same thing as unity of command.

If your approach weren't based on ignorance of previously established comments and insights, this sort of repetition would be unnecessary.

The rest of your post was based on the same apparent dismissal of previous remarks.

 

[JBeukema]

Ahh... So that which is natural is NOT good?

That something is natural does not make it inherently good or bad based purely on its 'naturalness'

Given the natural design is the sustainable design

design?

, reason is served that that which competes with the natural order is destined to fail.

really? So wearing clothing has failed?

So is this your rationalization which hopes to excuse the chronic failure of the left by projecting that 'that which is natural is inherently bad,

Care to show where he said that?

 

[JBeukema]

Let the record reflect that this turd has now sunk to creating multiple screen names through which to argue with herself...

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just freakin' SAD!

You have?

 

[JBeukema]

Sure... I exists therefore my rights exist...

That's not any evidence at all. Hell, using that 'reasoning'- I exist, therefore my right to enslave, rape, and kill you exists

Actually, there's no such thing as a social contract..

I can see how educated you are

.

I haven't agreed to any contract,

wait for it..

. I tend to my responsibilities and hold the rest of you accountable for your responsibilities...

Agreed. There is now a contract between you and I

moron

But it is worth noting that you, a leftist

,

have questioned the existance of inalienable rights, thus proving your existance to be at contest

Logic FAIL

I never posited any question regarding my existence, you fool.

to and your contest of those rights, therefore representing yourself as the enemy of America, a

There it is, folks- the standard moronc rightest argument : I disagree, so you are anti-american

[youtube]gwB2KZzDTDE[/youtube]

Again... It should also be noted that this idiot IS Aggrevated prostate... it is a mathematical certianty that they are one in the same human being.

a mthematical certainty, eh?

let's see your forumla

 

[Agnapostate]

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and inaliable rights of another is not coersion... but justice...

Punishment is only just when it has a basis in rational deterrence theory; a mere primitive and crude desire for retribution could constitute an outright conflict with attempts to establish rational deterrence. For example, consider the death penalty. The "eye for an eye" mob demands its use for every singly murderer. However, this creates a perverse incentive to commit additional murderers and violently resist attempts at police capture, since there will no longer be a greater punishment for such acts. The same is true when establishing execution as a punishment for rape.

[drivel]

Is this your means of attempting to conceal your resort to the naturalistic fallacy? I neither claimed that what was "natural" was inherently good or bad; rather, I noted that biological naturalness was divergent from the standard established by sound ethical analysis, and biologically natural acts will therefore be widely varying in terms of their moral status. Kin altruism is a biologically natural act and is typically morally right, whereas rape and sexual assault apparently have evolutionary origins, yet are morally wrong.

Your default concession is AGAIN, duly noted and summarily accepted...

The concession comes from her attempt to trot out a strawdog by which to change the subject, thus conceding the argument, from which she fled.

Nope! I simply noted your usage of the naturalistic fallacy and the reality that capitalism does not and cannot maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise, whereas socialism can. Your failure to respond to these charges is an obvious indication of your own concession, punk.

Let the record reflect that this turd has now sunk to creating multiple screen names through which to argue with herself...

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just freakin' SAD!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ahh... So that which is natural is NOT good?

That something is natural does not make it inherently good or bad based purely on its 'naturalness'

No? How so?

And be specific, at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

Given the natural design is the sustainable design

design?

Yeah, design...

, reason is served that that which competes with the natural order is destined to fail.

really? So wearing clothing has failed?

Is there something unatural about clothing? If so, what would that be? Again, be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

So is this your rationalization which hopes to excuse the chronic failure of the left by projecting that 'that which is natural is inherently bad,

Care to show where he said that?[/QUOTE][/quote]

HE? So you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now? FASCINATING!

Is there anyone that would like to go on record and declare that they know that neither the idiot to which I am responding and aggrevated prostate are two distinct human beings?

Anyone
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

 

[Agnapostate]

To clarify, Pubicus, your contention is that I had the opportunity to provide two moderately lengthy replies at 5:30 and 5:31 Pacific time, respectively?

 

[JBeukema]

No? How so?

You made the assertion that natural = good. Now you must demonstrate it or stfu. Demonstrate that rapwe, murder, and theft are inherently 'good'

Yeah, design...

Proce 'design'

Is there something unatural about clothing?

demonstrate that most, or even many, species aside from humanity wear clothing

HE? So you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now? FASCINATING!

I amamazed by how stupid a little troll you are

Is there anyone that would like to go on record and declare that they know that neither the idiot to which I am responding and aggrevated prostate are two distinct human beings?

neither...and? Wow.. your English skills really such

Where's that mathematical proof?

...

well...


where is it?

To clarify, Pubicus, your contention is that I had the opportunity to provide two moderately lengthy replies at 5:30 and 5:31 Pacific time, respectively?

you must be skilled... and quite a thorough schizophrenic.. even your delusions think that I am really me... or rather I must be good to think to me that your, who is me, is really you and not me... or whatever the hell bizarre theory PI has come up with

and IO still await the mathematical proof we were promised

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and inaliable rights of another is not coersion... but justice...

Punishment is only just when it has a basis in rational deterrence theory; a mere primitive and crude desire for retribution could constitute an outright conflict with attempts to establish rational deterrence. For example, consider the death penalty. The "eye for an eye" mob demands its use for every singly murderer. However, this creates a perverse incentive to commit additional murderers and violently resist attempts at police capture, since there will no longer be a greater punishment for such acts. The same is true when establishing execution as a punishment for rape.

Punishment doesn't serve to deter at all... such would in and of itself be a function of injustice; a reprisal designed to coerce others into a given pattern of behavior.

Justice is a function of accountability, wherein one has violated the rights of another; having therefore forfeited their own rights, as a result of having exercised their rights to the detriment of another. Holding that individual accountable for that personal failure, as a function of RECOMPENSE, to pay back the culture for THEIR PERSONAL FAILURE.

The Death Penalty simply establishes the price for having, without valid moral justification, taken the life, thus the full measure of rights, from another; the price being the forfeiture of their own life... where such may deter others, is irrelevant...

[drivel]

Is this your means of attempting to conceal your resort to the naturalistic fallacy?

No, as there is no such fallacy... Despite the assertion of the atheists cult to project such, as such.

What is natural simply IS... and being such, determines that such is sustainable; and where sustaining something is the goal, conceding to the natural design simply serves reason.

I neither claimed that what was "natural" was inherently good or bad;

I didn't say ya did... nor did I say anything which would suggest ya did... I merely asked a question for the sake of clarification...

But this is the argument that your other psuedonym advanced... which is kinda cool... given that reason suggests that trotting out your own opposition is a NO NO... as both a site rule of one screen name ONLY and as a function of lucidity... it serves as you outting yourSELF; and that's just hysterical!

Your default concession is AGAIN, duly noted and summarily accepted...

The concession comes from her attempt to trot out a strawdog by which to change the subject, thus conceding the argument, from which she fled.

Nope! I simply noted your usage of the naturalistic fallacy and the reality that capitalism does not and cannot maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise, whereas socialism can. Your failure to respond to these charges is an obvious indication of your own concession, punk.

Of course I didn't trot out any fallacious argument; again I asked a question... but; AGAIN, it is remarkable how BOTH of you came to the same conclusion...

Let the record reflect that this turd has now sunk to creating multiple screen names through which to argue with herself...

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just freakin' SAD!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

To clarify, Pubicus, your contention is that I had the opportunity to provide two moderately lengthy replies at 5:30 and 5:31 Pacific time, respectively?

Apparently... but if time is the measure, then it's unlikely that any two individuals would have had 'the time to provide a lengthy reply over the span of one minute... so the odds are that you're producing argument and pasting it on the board in the respective psuedonyms... that you've intentionally sought to note the time zome, simply demonstrates that you're using a proxy from distinct zones as a function of your little scheme...

But hey... two idiots equates to half the intellect being advanced, so you work it out however ya need to...

I'm just noting the obvious.

Granted if this were my site, you'd have been LONG gone... so it's clearly not my call, so don't sweat it.

 

[JBeukema]

Justice is a function of accountability, wherein one has violated the rights of another;

Whether something is 'just' is determined by subjective morality and ethics

punishment and 'justice' arise from a violation of the social contract and that which is deemed acceptable

The Death Penalty simply establishes the price for having, without valid moral justification, taken the life, thus the full measure of rights, from another; the price being the forfeiture of their own life...

Only insomuch as the death penalty is applied to cases of (ethically) unjustifiable homicide

No, as there is no such fallacy... Despite the assertion of the atheists cult to project such, as such.

What is natural simply IS... and being such, determines that such is sustainable; and where sustaining something is the goal, conceding to the natural design simply serves reason.

sustainable =/= 'right'

Now you're attempting to define your argument to avoid admitting the fact that you have been refuted

, it is remarkable how BOTH of you came to the same conclusion...

When a given conclusion is correct it is to be expected that more than one person will reach it eventually

 

[JBeukema]

Apparently... but if time is the measure, then it's unlikely that any two individuals would have had 'the time to provide a lengthy reply over the span of one minute...

Only if the two persons in question were as stupid as you

so the odds are that your producing argument and pasting it on the board in the respective psuedonyms... that you've intentionally sought to note the time zome, simply demonstrates that you're using a proxy from distinct zones as a function of your little scheme...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No? How so?

You made the assertion that natural = good. Now you must demonstrate it or stfu. Demonstrate that rapwe, murder, and theft are inherently 'good'

I made no such assertion Ag... I merely noted that the natural design is the sustainable design... Rape, murder and theft are inherently unnatural, as they each represent a usurpation of the unalienable rights of man... which is natural...

Your substandard cognition aside, the natural design provides for each human being to excersize their rights without infringing on the rights of another, and to hold those who fail to do so accountable for their personal failure to maintain their own inherent and natural responsibilities...

demonstrate that most, or even many, species aside from humanity wear clothing

Why on earth would sub-species, who lack the intellect to recognize the need for clothing; and for which the natural design has provided them with a outlayer which sustains them through their given environment, would wear clothing?

Yet nature has provided, the human species with the intellect necessary to provide themselves with such layers and to do so in every environment, from that below the surface of the earth, to outspace... which is of course perfectly natural, despite claims to the contrary, by those of substandard human cognitive means...

I amamazed...

"Amamazed," are ya? Well that serves reason...

Where's that mathematical proof?

Well lets see... there's 6 billion human beings on the planet... and the two of you are posting in duplicate syntax along precisely the same species of reasoning... espousing the same conclusions from such; which, without going too deep, it seems fairly unlikely... I'd say something on the order of several hundreds of million:1

To clarify, Pubicus, your contention is that I had the opportunity to provide two moderately lengthy replies at 5:30 and 5:31 Pacific time, respectively?

Yeah just like THAT!

you must be skilled... and quite a thorough schizophrenic.. even your delusions think that I am really me... or rather I must be good to think to me that your, who is me, is really you and not me... or whatever the hell bizarre theory PI has come up with

and IO still await the mathematical proof we were promised

ROFL... That's so sad...

 

[JBeukema]

No? How so?

You made the assertion that natural = good. Now you must demonstrate it or stfu. Demonstrate that rapwe, murder, and theft are inherently 'good'

I made no such assertion

So you recant your earlier posts and admit that I am right?

Ag...

I merely noted that the natural design is the sustainable design... Rape, murder and theft are inherently unnatural,

Which is why they occur in nature, outside of out species?

as they each represent a usurpation of the unalienable rights of man... which is natural...

is that the best you can do?

the natural design provides for each human being to excersize their rights without infringing on the rights of another,

Right... the Natural State has been rejected the world 'round for a reason

Why on earth would sub-species, who lack the intellect to recognize the need for clothing;

Many of them have no need?

and for which the natural design has provided them with a outlayer which sustains them through their given environment, would wear clothing?

Our bodies fit our environment perfectly, too- 'til we moved and spread

So, it does not occur in nature, excluding humanity. Thus t is unnatural. Therefore, per your argument, it is inherently bad.

That you must resort to attacking my person by citing typographical errors, merely highlight your complete lack of any valid or intelligent point.

Well lets see... there's 6 billion human beings on the planet...

All on USMB? All on the internet?

and the two of you are posting in duplicate syntax

along precisely the same species of reasoning...

pointing out logical fallacies in your assertions is simple, and there aren't many different ways of doing so

espousing the same conclusions from such; which, without going too deep, it seems fairly unlikely... I'd say something on the order of several hundreds of million:1

You'd say? And where are your formulas?

You fail to understand what a mathematical proof is

Moron

To clarify, Pubicus, your contention is that I had the opportunity to provide two moderately lengthy replies at 5:30 and 5:31 Pacific time, respectively?

 

[JBeukema]

In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true[1]. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Present proof of your 'mathematical fact

 

[Kalam]

Has it been explained specifically how justice would be administered in an anarcho-communistic society? Some semblance of centralized authority seems necessary if members of a society are to be able to protect themselves from any large-scale internal or external threat.

Additionally, how would production be directed to ensure that basic needs were met in the absence of any central authority? How would different "war committees" effectively coordinate troop movements without one party somehow imposing its will on others? As ideal as such a society sounds, it seems to be dependent on an unrealistically high degree of cooperation. In my opinion, a form of syndicalism with some sort of central legislating body would be more viable.

Apologies in advance if these questions have already been dealt with.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Justice is a function of accountability, wherein one has violated the rights of another;

Whether something is 'just' is determined by subjective morality and ethics

punishment and 'justice' arise from a violation of the social contract and that which is deemed acceptable

Ahh, well there ya have it kids... "Justice" is just some contrivance... a pretense which serves some popular subjective morality or ethics...

And THAT is why these idiots are to be ignored and culturally ostrocized; and should NEVER be allowed within 10 miles of a voting booth... As they stand against everything American stands upon...

The Death Penalty simply establishes the price for having, without valid moral justification, taken the life, thus the full measure of rights, from another; the price being the forfeiture of their own life...

Only insomuch as the death penalty is applied to cases of (ethically) unjustifiable homicide

What? ETHICALLY unjustifiable homocide?

LOL... Would ya list the circumstances wherein homicide would be ethically justifiable?

And we'll be needing some for of ethics which is intellectually and logically sustainable... For instance, Juedeo-Christian morality requires that the taking of a human life is only justifiable where one realizes a clear and present threat to one's own life or serious bodily injury, or that of another...

Now outside of that long standing moral ethic, what would be a example of 'ethical homicide?'

What is natural simply IS... and being such, determines that such is sustainable; and where sustaining something is the goal, conceding to the natural design simply serves reason.

sustainable =/= 'right'

Now you're attempting to define your argument to avoid admitting the fact that you have been refuted

The simple fact is that IF I've been refuted, you'd have long since noted that refutation, and instead, you simply need to falsely project such, due to a distinct lack of options.

, it is remarkable how BOTH of you came to the same conclusion...

When a given conclusion is correct it is to be expected that more than one person will reach it eventually

Yeah... but given where a conclusion, which cannot be said to be correct, as there are no principles which sustain such, is said by two individuals; one of which came to this forum during the period when the other was banned and who spent a fair bit of that time, espousing the same long discredited nonsense that the aforementioned banned member was known to advocate; reason is served that they are the same loathesome piece of leftism, which has been using their numerous psuedonyms to vote themselves absurd levels of rep points and now has succumbed to using the psuedonyms as her own personal ech-chamber... that they're the same person; and there's the odds of probability on the order of many hundred of millions:1 that such would not occur otherwise...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You made the assertion that natural = good. Now you must demonstrate it or stfu. Demonstrate that rapwe, murder, and theft are inherently 'good'

I made no such assertion

So you recant your earlier posts and admit that I am right?

Your concession is AGAIN, Duly noted and summarily accepted...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Has it been explained specifically how justice would be administered in an anarcho-communistic society?

No... because that would require a GOVERNMENT... and where such exists, ANARCHY does NOT EXIST... Thus refuting the entire notion... which is why so few idiots, who consider it, do so for more than the first few seconds when this fatal flaw becomes obvious...

[/QUOTE]