I have to work at it, but anything worth doing is worth doing well. :D

OK, please to have cites of inconsistency.

oh... crap.
Attachment 37658

:corn:

CM,

As I say, 'one down, one to go'.

Well, BV?

"Dammit, yes! That is right, I did it! I have number five! Are you kidding me?! That's right!"

"Who do you think you are - I am?!"

I WIN!! ;)

I'm not on anyone's side but here are two citations:

mornin!

henry quirk. I am not going to make an exhaustive report with cites and quotes. (written earlier, turned out to be completely wrong.. oh well.) I will say that from what I've read from you, you consistently express your separateness from everybody else. You've talked about how you don't want governors, and lots of other descriptive nouns bossing you around. Not a damn thing wrong with that. But you are a part of society, despite your protestations to the contrary. For one, you're a member of our society here at the cellar. You abide by our shared rules here. I believe you live in America, though I don't know where, and I don't really know where I got that idea anyhow. But I'm using that as my working understanding. Even if you live in a different country, you would still be a member of society, despite your protestations.

This is the kind of inconsistency I find in your position.

Because I am familiar with our society here, I can assess your statements in context. I know a fair bit how our system of taxation works. I know how our system of government works. Some of the distance between our points of view is subjective. I accept that. You've said that you want services, you don't want directives. Well, one man's service is another man's directive.

We talked about plumbing recently. For you, having clean water from your tap could be considered a service delivered by "proxies?". Or government, hm? But to another person, one that lives upstream from you, your "clean water" may represent a directive restricting his ability to dispose of his sewage (or manure or toxic waste or whatever) in a convenient way. Same objective fact: delivery of clean water. Different interpretations, for you, a service, for that other guy, a directive. This is the kind of contradiction I find in your positions.

I don't agree with much of what you said. Not like these examples, but I have a different opinion about the role of government, or the value of a progressive system of taxation, or the value of taxation at all for that matter. These kinds of differences are fine. You express your opinion pretty well, and I don't share it. Nothing wrong with that, indeed, I sincerely appreciate your contributions here, and that absolutely includes your positions however different from mine.

I'm sorry I took so long to respond to you. In the meantime, I'd managed to collect a few examples of posts, conversation excerpts. I don't know what kind of order they're in, let's just roll the film, shall we?

Here's one where we disagree on the terms; or you're being inconsistent. It has to do with society and groups.
This one's me speaking, replying to you.
In this post you talk about your preference for government to go away, I'm paraphrasing. You were called out as an anarchist for that position and you did admit to being anarchistic later. That was big of you, really, and my "problem" with this post is mostly one of subjective preference. I think we need government, you have a much different position.

You make the same point here, government should not exist. Practically a logical impossibility, a paradox.
Here, you say that there's no such thing as give, only take, in the context of government. A moment later you say there is give/contribute, implying the context of a non-government transaction. I also disagree on this point. I think you're failing to or improperly dismissing the "contribution" of the government. While this fits with your whole zero-government vibe, that's not possible. Being here, assuming you're here, is an implicit acceptance of much of what the government provides.

This is the kind of double standard I find reduces the credibility of your position.

Good government is poor government. I paraphrase, but that's your point here. The more dysfunctional the better. No, the more dysfunctional the more dysfunctional. That's a contradiction. You may dislike government, but poor government doesn't make good government despite your schadenfreude.
I hope this answers your question. You have been patient with my delayed post, thank you for your patience.

quick and dirty...
 

"you are a part of society, despite your protestations to the contrary. For one, you're a member of our society here at the cellar"

Living by choice or by circumstance in a house infested with roaches doesn't make one a roach... ;)

This is not an inconsistency or lack of foundation on my part, but rather a matter of two differing interpretations of 'society' and what means to be a member of society.

#

"You've said that you want services"

No. I said, if we're gonna play the nation game, then I want this nation to follow the blueprint and provide proxyhood, not governance.

Personally: I'd rather the whole mess just cease to be.

#

"For you, having clean water from your tap could be considered a service delivered by "proxies?"."

No, having water service is all about my paying for it...economic transaction, clean and simple.

#

"...for you, a service, for that other guy, a directive..."

Since I always and only speak for myself, my positions (regarding 'me', the 'world', and what I do in the world) is consistent...if the other feels 'directed' or hobbled by me then he should what he can to stop me. As I've written in this forum the essential reality is might versus might, the competition of individual values...there is no inherent morality to the world.

This is not an inconsistency or lack of foundation on my part, but rather a failure of understanding on your part.

#

Regarding morality: if I hold a position another views as moral while I consider it merely pragmatic or personal, should I go with my interpretation or the other's?

#

Regarding the role of government: to not exist, to be replaced with proxyhood (or nothing at all).

#

Regarding government's nature as taker: government (not democracy, not republic, not monarchy, not communitarianism, etc.) produces nothing…only individual human beings create or produce.

You say, "Being here, assuming you're here, is an implicit acceptance of much of what the government provides."

I assume you mean the net, yes? The government did nada...the individual -- working with other individuals, or alone, but always for his or her own reasons -- generates the net. Government, as entity and mechanism, did squat. Was structure and agreement and financing requiring to generate the net and to maintain it? Yes, of course. Structure provided by individuals, agreement among individuals, financing of individuals. Government, as entity and mechanism, did squat.

You, of course, see what I'm doing, yes?

I’m placing government in its proper place along with 'society', and 'justice and 'equity' and so on as sometimes useful fiction. And yet, despite the obvious fictional nature of government, so many clamor up the steps expecting the ghost to do something for them.

#

Regarding effective government: the best 'governance is that which is poor, slow, and self-divided. You claim I self-contradict, but, again it's just a matter of differing interpretations. You differ from in me in how you see governance, so of course, for you, effective and efficient governance is 'good'. I'm opposed to governance and see any roadblock to governors’ effectiveness and efficiency as 'good'. Different, competing, viewpoints and values, not inconsistency on my part.

#

"I hope this answers your question"

Yes, thanks...I hope you see that what you perceived as inconsistencies, in fact are just differences of interpretation mixed in, perhaps, with a touch of misinterpretation on your part.