Thread: Psychopathy
View Single Post
Old 03-07-2012, 01:41 PM   #68
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
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.
like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote