Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 May 2001 13:02:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1333 times
|
| |
|
|
I started twitching spastically 2/3 of the way through this. Scott, in ten
years on the net, actively participating in conversations with all kinds of
people with all kinds of beliefs, from all over the world, I have never, ever,
met anyone as annoying as you. I hate Larry's cheap "critical thinker" jabs at
you...I really do...but you are such the annoying twit sometimes that I just
don't even get what makes you tick. But I'm better now.
Anyway, I figured you'd like to know that you were able to reach out 3000 miles
and seriously push someone's button. At least I assume that's why you act like
this.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > This is a classic tragedy of the commons problem. Whoever most insanely
> > > > > > exploits the commons "wins",
> > > >
> > > > > Welcome to the planet earth Larry.
This is either irony expressed at the fact that this is how things work all
over, or a stupid and snide comment meant as an attack. If you have even the
slightest interest in productive conversation (thought I think that you
probably do not) you should be careful about such comments.
> > > > What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
As is typical, he refuses to answer.
> > > > I've been here all along and have
> > > > been quite aware of this class of problem inasmuch as it points out a major
> > > > failing in the concept of public ownership.
> > >
> > > Explain please.
What kind of a comment is this? Explain what?
> > Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you
> > are familiar with it.
>
> Not my point - but never mind.
Because there was no point at all? I'd guess this is just a false distracter
trying to keep the argument going unproductively.
> > > > > > What exactly WOULD you do about overfishing? What is your concrete • proposal
> > > > > > to address it? Owning the fish isn't practical, is it? What is?
Hahahaha! Aren't you talking to Scott? He doesn't _have_ any concrete
proposals...for anything. He simply will not address the point of the thread.
All he will do is make asinine comments like
> > > > > I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than
> > > > > jutifying your
> > > > > past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you.
As if that had anything at all to do with what Larry said. It is clear to me
that Scott is participating in this thread solely as a disruptive influence.
Larry, please stop. You won't make this anything productive as long as you
respond to him. If you can't engage others (I would personally be interested
to read more of Chris Tracey's comments on this) because of Scott's disruptive
influence, then he's won. There is just no way around it. His sense of
responsibility won't censor his disruption. I assume that Todd won't. So it's
decided -- all you can do is flail and seethe, and that's not worth your time.
Now, we get something sort of like a proposal from Scott, but it shows more
problems than solutions, so it would be tough to actually call it _his_
solution:
> > > > > The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict
> > > > > limits on both the number of fishing licenses a country can have (although
> > > > > fishermen can, and do, sell them overseas) and the amount of fish it can • land.
> > > > > The problem with the system is that the freemarketers (fishermen) have no
> > > > > respect for the law or the resource they are exploiting.
> > > >
> > > > If they are breaking laws they are not freemarketeers, unless the laws are
> > > > unjust.
> > >
> > > Explain please.
> >
> > Explain the notion that a person engaged in stealing is not a free
> > marketeer? Seems obvious to me. Maybe you're not as familiar with property
> > rights???
>
> A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break
> laws.
Free marketeers don't exist where they are regulated by laws beyond those that
instruct property rights.
> Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"?
Their mind. God. The same thing that gives you the right to decide that a law
is unjust...or do you feel that you don't have that "right?"
> > > > In short, the system isn't working, then, but doing more of the same will
> > > > work?
> > >
> > > Did I say that? No.
Yes. In essence, by responding to a request for what you propose with this
information, it strongly suggested that you thought it was the appropriate
solution. Further you said that this plan with more enforcement was the best
solution. The only thing confusing is that you pointed out the host of
problems that suggest why it is not a good solution.
> Anyhow, what is your altermative.
He is specifically and clearly admitting that the traditional LP stance on this
issues is impractical, so he's querying for other suggestions. He's not even
arguing with you.
> You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate misrepresentation of
> an argument – very libertarian.
When I read crap like this it brings out the worst in me. Usually, the idea of
seeing teeth shattering into someone's mouth is highly unappealing.
> > it's your turn to explain your proposal rather than
> > taking pot shots.
>
> I think I already have Larry.
You haven't explained dick. Cut the retarded posturing.
> > I know that's a bit harder but I want to play your role
> > for a while.
>
> You can start by explaining yourself then Larry.
Ha! Broken-record boy meets anti-memory boy.
> > What IS your alternative? Current exactly as it is? Some expansion or change?
>
> Read my most Larry.
Uh huh. Right.
> > > > Please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "enforced more". How do
> > > > you propose that be accomplished?
> > >
> > > By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The
> > > freemarketeers should be trusted less.
> >
> > Better enforcement?
>
> Now you are getting it.
>
> > How does that work exactly?
>
> The law is enforced.
Wait...now I get it. Anger at this Scott entity is silly on my part. (Now I'm
much, much better.) Until just this very second, reading this exchange above
for the second time, I hadn't realized that we're working with the newest
generation of the Eliza program. Knowing that you are an artificial entity on
the other end of this net connection explains everything.
1) Actual conversation is almost impossible for The Scott.
2) The Scott is quite handy at digging up web citations.
3) Requests for clarification of The Scott's comments are met with confusion.
4) The Scott is proficient at a narrow set of tasks (like hawking LEGO on eBay)
5) Advocating the obeying of rules without thought or question is The Scott's
norm.
6) Mindless socialism probably is a valid approach for a colony of neural net
software.
7) The Scott will sometimes answer yes/no questions but will not elaborate.
8) Some terms are learned from The Scott's opponents and adopted in a quirky
way. (eg squirming)
9) Appeals to fringe authority power The Scott's arguments because it can't
tell the difference between reality and fiction.
> > What exactly would you do?
> > Put an enforcement officer on each boat?
>
> No.
>
> > Count catches?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Confiscate boats
> > that didn't have permits?
>
> I expect that happens anyway.
>
> > Elaborate.
See point seven above.
> You are squirming again. Explain yourself. Show us why you think the 2500
> economists were wrong.
See point nine above. Also, there are other economists who advocate free
market solutions...so why don't you simply accept their claims?
Chris
(To anyone who wishes to chastise me for the unproductive nature of this post,
save it. I know it wasn't needed for you, I just snapped and needed to get it
off my chest. It was a selfish act on my part and I carefully made sure that
while it isn't exactly appropriate, it is in accord with the T&C as expressed
at http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement .)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| Although I have not read all of this I find this very unproductive. I am happy to be called "disruptive" if it means questioning those who make unsubstantiated remarks. I am sure those who make unsubstantiated remarks are happy that you are creating (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Not my point - but never mind. (...) A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break laws. Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"? (...) You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
