Thread: Psychopathy
View Single Post
Old 03-07-2012, 12:17 PM   #67
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Originally Posted by henry quirk View Post

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

Well, BV?

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.
Originally Posted by hq
There is something approaching seven billion individuals on the Earth and not a 'WE' or 'US' anywhere to be found (except in the heads of folks who 'want' to be part of something bigger).

I'm not interested in being a component of 'WE', so, I don't need to be led.

I understand lots of folks 'do' want (or need) to be led...great and fine...*just leave me out of it.
This one's me speaking, replying to you.
Originally Posted by BigV
hq, you and I have a number of points on which we disagree, and they seem to revolve (mostly) around vocabulary. This is one of those times. In a recent post regarding Paterno's firing, you described your thoughts about child sexual abuse. And then you added the caveat that it was not a moral distinction.


I disagree. Just as in this post above, your thoughts about it might be your own, but those thoughts *are* your expression of your morals. The feelings you expressed about child sexual abuse are widely shared among practically everyone in our society. That they exist "inside the head of individual you" doesn't make them less moral.
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.
"What is the proper role of government?"
In my view: to not exist.

--snip (there's more)
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.
Originally Posted by hq
"As a team it would be disfunctional"

Gum up the works...slow that train down (even more).

Effective, efficient, government is a chain (leash) around a citizen's neck.

If the 'governors' insist on being 'full-time' then let them war with one another most of the time and leave you and me and him and her 'alone'.
I hope this answers your question. You have been patient with my delayed post, thank you for your patience.
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote