tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post5223189471239324735..comments2024-03-18T11:28:36.841-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Contractual Communitybionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-35670491228912473362018-07-13T13:05:15.054-07:002018-07-13T13:05:15.054-07:00Here you go:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2...Here you go:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2018/07/for-spooner.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59552651531231049342018-07-13T08:18:06.052-07:002018-07-13T08:18:06.052-07:00Agreed, Nick. I look forward to BM's reply to ...Agreed, Nick. I look forward to BM's reply to Spooner's arguments.EMPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77175193548256025812018-07-12T17:30:07.319-07:002018-07-12T17:30:07.319-07:00I'm glad to hear that BM, Spooner has made exc...I'm glad to hear that BM, Spooner has made excellent arguments and the fact you two were able to reconcile is great. I look forward to seeing further exchanges.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-668970739138319932018-07-12T17:27:43.043-07:002018-07-12T17:27:43.043-07:00Will do.Will do.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20353409446079593112018-07-12T17:24:23.870-07:002018-07-12T17:24:23.870-07:00Thank you, Spooner.
You ask some very good questi...Thank you, Spooner.<br /><br />You ask some very good questions and raise some points worth further discussion. I will do my best to work through these. It might take a day or two, and depending on how extensive my reply is, I may write a new post (with a link here so it isn't missed).<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45347211764309582032018-07-12T17:20:20.588-07:002018-07-12T17:20:20.588-07:00Nick, please let's move on. This disagreement...Nick, please let's move on. This disagreement need not drag on endlessly. There will be plenty of opportunities in future threads to continue the dialogue in a respectful manner without rehashing these recent events.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83490861577276162622018-07-12T16:01:24.204-07:002018-07-12T16:01:24.204-07:00" Also not aware of the vitriol for "a l..." Also not aware of the vitriol for "a lot of people," as you claim."<br /><br />Well, I'm not going to go through all the comment sections to point out all the instances, but here's one just the other day:<br /><br /><br />"I actually got the creeps listening to this "man" (perpetual adolescent rather) for the first time. He clearly bought into the late night tavern-Darwinism of "sociobiology," and he's just clueless on the issue. I think types like these as poster boys for libertarianism also go some way to explain the limited appeal. Well, at least he won't pass on his genes." (Sag)<br /><br /><br /><br />"Sorry but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here."<br /><br />"I've used the anon option ever since, always signed with Sag."<br /><br />No one knows who "Sag" is, and though it seems you are not a libertarian it does seem that you and I have something in common:<br /><br />An affinity for elements of honor society, and honor would seem to dictate that if you make personal attacks as part of your argument that you should sign your full name to them if they are directed to people that are also using their full names so you're not dismissed as merely a troll and people know that you are serious about your attacks.<br /><br />Lastly, just for a little context on what you deem as "no small thing"- BM and I had just finished discussing the nature German decentralization as being libertarian in nature in the previous article, I naturally asked about theocracy, and when he started referring to "Lutheran individuality" in the next write up I assumed it was a pick up off our last exchange. That I didn't connect he was arguing that the transition from start of the Reformation was cause for the loss earlier German hybrid decentralization with libertarian themes IS a relatively small thing in my opinion. It’s small because not only as he pointed out to you earlier the change in attitude didn’t happen overnight, but he had also argued previously that the Enlightenment was a major cause- and the relevance to your comment is just that. <br /><br />To chalk up loss of this decentralization to one simple occurrence, whether it be the Reformation, Luthern Individuality, or the Enlightment is not seeing the big picture and in the scheme of things my lapse is small.<br /><br />Further yet, this is all speculation, even if the arguments appear sound it’s no guarantee of truth. In fact, stripping out history this is a problem logically:<br /><br />How can we push “decentralization” as a solution when it follows that “individuality” was a cause of the loss of liberty, given that decentralization itself is promoting a form of individuality, even on a communal basis?<br /><br />So I still have my doubts, but I continue to be willing to read with an open mind, and comment from time to time...as long the dialog is respectful and meaningful.<br />Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76289520417877852942018-07-12T08:30:00.362-07:002018-07-12T08:30:00.362-07:00My indicating that you said ‘serious’ when you did...My indicating that you said ‘serious’ when you did not say that was indeed a false accusation, and was wrong of me: I am sorry for my behavior. I should not have put words in your mouth – I don’t like when people do it to me and I know I shouldn’t be doing it to other people. My apologies.<br /><br />I thought my assumption that you were not addressing un-serious and/or non-libertarian thinkers was a safe one, so I just want to add as part of my apology that inserting the verbiage into your claim wasn’t done maliciously (if that helps at all) as I really assumed it was a safe interpretation of what you were saying. Regardless, working off of something you didn’t actually say is wrong even if the intention wasn’t malicious and again, I apologize.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66965998603300091732018-07-12T07:59:31.604-07:002018-07-12T07:59:31.604-07:00Pirate Code
https://infogalactic.com/info/Pirate_c...Pirate Code<br />https://infogalactic.com/info/Pirate_code<br />JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-32501243019114700812018-07-12T06:20:05.152-07:002018-07-12T06:20:05.152-07:00Yes, I will ask that we all move on. Thanks.Yes, I will ask that we all move on. Thanks.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86356061992845764882018-07-12T05:21:13.966-07:002018-07-12T05:21:13.966-07:00Nick
"anonymously none the less.."
S...Nick <br /><br /><i>"anonymously none the less.."</i><br /><br />Sorry but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here. I used to be able to comment with my Typepad account, visible as "Sagunto," signed Richard (<a href="http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2018/02/twenty-first-century-conservatism.html?showComment=1519462257005#c7517141483429725408" rel="nofollow">here's an example</a>, now visible as "Anonymous"), but that option is no longer available. No problem. I've used the anon option ever since, always signed with Sag. (for friends) ;)<br /><br />As for the delivery, well, you have to believe me that I consider it rather <i>unfortunate</i> but necessary to be upfront and straightforward every now and then. Just to get things moving beyond basics, such as simple timelines (no "small thing" Nick). Also not aware of the vitriol for "a lot of people," as you claim. Just you and your recurring anachronism, an issue that appears to be solved for now. I'd say case closed, let's move on.<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77631779872983170762018-07-12T05:18:25.075-07:002018-07-12T05:18:25.075-07:00“I pointed out this is a strawman as no such offer...“I pointed out this is a strawman as no such offer is being made by any serious libertarian.”<br /><br />Of course, I didn’t use the word “serious,” so your charge is a strawman. If you apologize for opening your entire rant with a strawman argument, then I will consider continuing this conversation; it really depends on how I feel about the sincerity of your apology. <br /><br />After all, beginning with a false accusation is not very Christ-like of you.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-34697879727985119052018-07-11T19:57:33.510-07:002018-07-11T19:57:33.510-07:00The point of your post was to refute libertarians ...The point of your post was to refute libertarians who offer that agreement by contract would be sufficient to form a libertarian community. I pointed out this is a strawman as no such offer is being made by any serious libertarian. My point stands.<br /><br />Your ‘main objection’ to covenant communities is that they are no different than hiring/electing a strongman. While you explain your lesser objections in some detail, you don’t account for this one. My question as to why this this equivocation is legitimate remains unanswered.<br /><br />You complain that contracts can never capture all possibilities, and I pointed out that neither does old and good law, and asked what the difference was. My question remains unanswered.<br /><br />You said a meeting of the minds between two people was difficult and I simply noted the factually accurate point that it happens millions of times a day.<br /><br />You equate a covenant community with constitutional ones and I pointed out that for a constitution to be a contract, all parties would have to sign on to it and asked for an example of a constitution that is like this. My question remains unanswered. <br /><br />I pointed out that your idea of a libertarian order did not last. This is factually accurate. 1,000 years or 1,000,000 years, it failed. We need to learn what we can from this, the best example we have, and move forward.<br /><br />I have ‘negotiated’ a few contracts for deals at least 1% as complex as buying a professional sports team. It was difficult, but as the example of buying professional sports teams demonstrates, not impossible.<br /><br />And no, I’ve never got a few thousand people to agree to the terms a million times a day -- nor did I claim anything of the sort.<br /><br />Continually in my business I hear, "you know, that isn't what the terms meant to me!" That’s why we have terms in our contract for what to do when someone says “you know, that isn’t what the terms meant to me!” It’s one of the least complicated portions of the contract.<br /><br />“Heavens, why does someone as skilled as you waste time commenting here?”<br /><br />Why does someone who considers themself a Christ-follower think it’s ok to talk to people this way?<br /><br /><br />“...maybe you missed the word "oath," one that I have used - oh, I don't know - maybe ten thousand times; something far more meaningful than contract, given the environment of the time.”<br /><br />Yes, I have missed how your use of the word “oath” (that doesn’t appear in you post) relates?<br /><br />“Yes, I will take you seriously, you serious libertarian thinker, you.”<br /><br />How very Christ-like of you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2054715592406087752018-07-11T19:53:46.038-07:002018-07-11T19:53:46.038-07:00Mises posted an essay about the Supreme Court bein...Mises posted an essay about the Supreme Court being too powerfull. Indeed, the battles for sitting a new justice makes a mockery of the concept that we are a nation of laws and not of men.<br />What if, the Constitution explicitly stated that a majority of State Legislatures can override a SCOTUS decision. All States must vote override or not. Abstention is a no override vote. An override must voted within a year of the SCOTUS' decision to be overturned. All it takes is one State to override and, then, all other States must convene an override session.<br />It will also help a bunch for Senators to, again, be appointed by a State's legislature and sibject to recall by their respective legilature.<br /><br />The point is that a contract/covenant must be explicit in stating how signarories can challenge the agents hired to implement the agreement.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1615949028963621842018-07-11T18:06:44.982-07:002018-07-11T18:06:44.982-07:00Ever tried negotiating a complex contract - one su...Ever tried negotiating a complex contract - one sufficient enough to cover all contingencies regarding your liberty? Wait, how about one about 1% as complex, say a contract to buy a professional sports team?<br /><br />But wait! Ever get a few hundred or a few thousand people to agree to the terms - and have a meeting of the minds? This happens a million times a day for you? <br /><br />Never have one of those few hundred or few thousand people say..."you know, that isn't what the terms meant to me"? NEVER?<br /><br />Heavens, why does someone as skilled as you waste time commenting here?<br /><br />As to lasing...or not...1000 years plus or minus is the longest lasting example example I have found. Maybe you have a better example? Some libertarian wet-dream to be found only in fantasy?<br /><br />As to the idea of contract being my blind spot, maybe you missed the word "oath," one that I have used - oh, I don't know - maybe ten thousand times; something far more meaningful than contract, given the environment of the time.<br /><br />Yes, I will take you seriously, you serious libertarian thinker, you.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52259320315987871052018-07-11T17:13:32.867-07:002018-07-11T17:13:32.867-07:00No serious libertarian thinker has ever ‘offered’ ...No serious libertarian thinker has ever ‘offered’ that agreement by contract would be sufficient to form a libertarian community. Prove me wrong?<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />“My main objection to covenant communities is that this idea is nothing other than restating the need of hiring the right strongman: “if only we elect the right leader.””<br /><br />How (on earth) could covenant communities possibly equate with hiring (or electing) a strongman? (Why elaborate on lesser objections only to bring up your main objection and then not explain it?)<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />“No matter how detailed, one can never capture beforehand all possibilities; no matter how well thought-out, contracts are modified and revised.”<br /><br />Old and good law can never capture all possibilities, either, so why not object to old and good law as well? What’s the difference?<br /><br />“No matter how well delineated, achieving a “meeting of the minds” between two people is often complex enough…”<br /><br />And yet it happens millions of times a day, everywhere, all over the world, non-aggressively, thanks to the concept of *contract*.<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />“What is a contractual community but a community in which all residents have signed onto the constitution? And how well have constitutions – a piece of paper – been respected by even those who have signed or drafted it?”<br /><br />A constitution that everyone has signed onto can be considered a contract. You say all such constitutions have failed, but: can you name a single constitution that fits this definition of contract?<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />“The longest lasting and most (relatively) libertarian society had law that was supported by… respect for ...God. In its place, we have tried constitutions and we have tried strongmen. Neither has worked very well at securing and maintaining liberty.”<br /><br />And yet this vaguely libertarian-ish society supported by respect for God, as you yourself seem to grasp, DID NOT LAST. So that idea -- your idea -- is clearly a failed one. Taking what we can learn from the experience is a great idea, but clearly one or more concepts need to be added, dropped, or modified. One concept that needs to be added to your old and good law, your respect for God, and so on, is the idea of *contract*. It’s a blind spot in your philosophy and it would help you with your struggle if you were to examine it more carefully. Insula Qui at zerothposition has done great work on it, I recommend his series on Anarcho-Monarchism, Part IV in particular.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72270696942890183172018-07-11T16:30:42.192-07:002018-07-11T16:30:42.192-07:00Victor, in my reading there were kings elected or ...Victor, in my reading there were kings elected or chosen from among the nobles to enforce the law. I read of this first in Fritz Kern's book - he seems pretty knowledgeable on the topic.<br /><br />I suspect different regions at different times had different practices.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90489241874008912482018-07-11T16:27:01.400-07:002018-07-11T16:27:01.400-07:00Bionic I think with Medieval Germanic tribes they ...Bionic I think with Medieval Germanic tribes they accepted a king only during time of war. Once the threat of enemy conquest passed the King had to either abdicate or risk decapitation.Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88318807953288303502018-07-11T16:25:20.511-07:002018-07-11T16:25:20.511-07:00Victor, Nick's comment was directed to Sag. B...Victor, Nick's comment was directed to Sag. But as I value the tone and dialogue and utility of the comments (and it is my site, after all), I admit to doing my share of pruning and trimming.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-64284706010448675702018-07-11T15:12:24.585-07:002018-07-11T15:12:24.585-07:00Said Nick to Bionic, "You seem to have a lot...Said Nick to Bionic, "You seem to have a lot of vitriol for a lot of people here over relatively minor things." One could say that Bionic plays the role of 'strongman' among his fellow mosquitoes on here:) Why not ? Every endeavor and enterprise with multiple participants needs someone to play that role. Nietztche tells us the very definition of man is his 'will to power'. That it itself is by no means bad. The entrepreneur expresses his will to power by profiting from providing people what they want. The will to power is only bad when expressed by ganging up in order to rule over others by force as in the case of all political power. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73342947171769753382018-07-11T14:24:52.187-07:002018-07-11T14:24:52.187-07:00BM,
Thanks for referring me to the earlier post; ...BM,<br /><br />Thanks for referring me to the earlier post; it's one of my favorites. I read it at the time but didn't recall it during the present discussion. I think you and I have a similar view of western culture and its roots and influences. The blog post in question may actually be partly responsible for my current ideas.<br /><br />The loss of “the old good law” may have derived from the loss of the concept of a God granted individual divinity prevalent in medieval Christian thought. Science says there's no evidence for God and thus for a belief in religiously derived value structures (morality.) When the “soul” is stripped from the individual, science and reason can easily argue for an elevation of the collective over the personal. That which is good for the collective is good and even requires sacrifice of the individual to the collective good. This concept is easily sold to the members of the collective (state), convincing them that their sacrifice is to a higher good (the health of the collective.) This belief facilitates conscription of giant armies to fight wars for the collective. It also facilitates the formation of scientifically derived societies, both communist and capitalist, based on collective organization.<br /><br />Perhaps, as I think you are suggesting, we need an appreciation of the transcendent nature of the individual. Maybe we need to restore divinity to the individual to reduce the influence of the collective. It seems that increasing individual liberty might require more balance between the influence of the spiritual and the rational. The spiritual may be more rational than we believe.Royden Lippincotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904603983909944708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37508441733326249272018-07-11T12:38:01.871-07:002018-07-11T12:38:01.871-07:00Nick, "I'm trying to understand specifica...Nick, "I'm trying to understand specifically what you mean about non-libertarian means to keep libertarian communities, where the line is drawn regarding actual physical aggression, etc. et al"<br /><br />That is indeed the point, that 'line' does not exist. Its a grey zone that defies definition. IMO it cannot be defined because it depends on so many variables that only a neural network can make the decision (violence allowed vs not).<br /><br />Unsatisfactory? for some, yes. Others, not so much.Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74596862574009304062018-07-11T11:13:52.656-07:002018-07-11T11:13:52.656-07:00Sag, both you and I have addressed Nick's comm...Sag, both you and I have addressed Nick's comment, why do you continue to raise it?<br /><br />I have addressed yours - not a debate, just explaining my point. If you find it irrelevant to your comment, so be it.<br /><br />Your obnoxious attitude is not helpful toward dialogue.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29101748144725268132018-07-11T10:17:39.992-07:002018-07-11T10:17:39.992-07:00The "debate" you invoke is a strawman of...The "debate" you invoke is a strawman of your own making BM and beside the point I was trying to make.<br /><br />I'll draw a picture of the time frame involved in the anachronism I was addressing, look:<br /><br />500-----Middle-----1000-----Ages-----1500 . (the point is Luther, right there)<br /><br />Here's Nick's anachronism, a simple impossibility is all:<br /><br /><i>"the decentralization and Lutheran individualism you describe for much of the Middle Ages."</i><br /><br />"Much of the MA" would mean what, more than 500 years, before say 1500?<br /><br />It's not that hard.<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83707025833579483502018-07-11T10:12:55.934-07:002018-07-11T10:12:55.934-07:00You might want to look into the history of when an...You might want to look into the history of when and how this saintly company took a wrong turn. They knew where the road led, well before they made any such promises.<br /><br />In any case, the specifics don't matter; it isn't so that absent government everyone will play fair or never pull a bait and switch (a phrase that long precedes any "state" assistance). bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com