Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2009, 12:21 PM   #201
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
1. The defendant will likely be represented before he commits a crime
2. His victim will also be represented
3. Their representatives will likely have a preexisting agreement of what court to use when their clients have a disagreement
3a. This court will never be a biased one, for obvious reasons
4. If a company insists on using biased courts, then they will likely be unable to work with other insurance companies
5. Because of 4, that company is pretty useless to their clients.

Is this clear yet?
Sadly, no.

1a. The defendant will fire any representative that collaborates with his intended victim's representative just before committing the crime and take his chances until contacting a security provider subsidiary of Acquittals R Us that he read about on clearlybusted.com, a defendant's web forum which gives it rave reviews.

5a. The Mobster: "I'm looking at 8 to 10, so I need a representative who cares more about me than being able to work with other insurance companies. Here, take this large roll of hundreds and get a ruling in my favor from your parent company Acquittals R Us."
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:23 PM   #202
foal
Pooh-Bah
 
foal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: half villain, half good player
Posts: 3,593
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
Arbitration and enforcement are two separate functions IMO. I'm not sure "enforcement" as you're speaking of it is compatible with a free market in the first place, really. Certainly not the type of enforcement we have in the status quo. There are some actions that currently fall under enforcement that would be legitimate in a free market, but not all of them.
I take it you don't subscribe to the "treat everyone who doesn't join our favored courts as Somali pirates with no rights" school of anarcho-capitalism then.
foal is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:29 PM   #203
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Sadly, no.

1a. The defendant will fire any representative that collaborates with his intended victim's representative just before committing the crime and take his chances until contacting a security provider subsidiary of Acquittals R Us that he read about on clearlybusted.com, a defendant's web forum which gives it rave reviews.

5a. The Mobster: "I'm looking at 8 to 10, so I need a representative who cares more about me than being able to work with other insurance companies. Here, take this large roll of hundreds and get a ruling in my favor from your parent company Acquittals R Us."
EXCEPT THE VICTIM'S SECURITY FIRM WILL NOT WORK WITH ACQUITTALS R US. THE VICTIM WILL NOT GO TO THE ****TY COURT AND GET SCREWED

That means that the corrupt security firm cannot offer the service you claim they do. Period. They might produce a huge pile of "verdicts" that nobody respects, which still leaves open the possibility of the victim being taken to a fair court, with the same result as if he had used the fair court in the first place, except he loses the money he paid to the corrupt one.

This is not a long term business plan, and the corrupt firm will quickly go out of business.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:30 PM   #204
tomdemaine
Just tries harder
 
tomdemaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Social Justice Rogue
Posts: 20,071
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by foal View Post
I take it you don't subscribe to the "treat everyone who doesn't join our favored courts as Somali pirates with no rights" school of anarcho-capitalism then.
No one in this thread subscribes to that view. The view you are (seemingly willfully) mischaracterising is that once you initiate force you have no right to claim injury if someone uses force against you. I think the somalia "pirates" are a bad example as they have had force initiated against their property but the argument is they have gone outside the "law" and initiated force so then lose their "right" to not have force used against them.
tomdemaine is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:44 PM   #205
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
EXCEPT THE VICTIM'S SECURITY FIRM WILL NOT WORK WITH ACQUITTALS R US. THE VICTIM WILL NOT GO TO THE ****TY COURT AND GET SCREWED
LOL @ the defendant giving a ****, as long as the case against him can't go forward.

Quote:
That means that the corrupt security firm cannot offer the service you claim they do. Period.
Nonsense. The mobster just passed them a fat roll of hundreds to put on a black robe and say, "Not guilty." That's business, baby.

Quote:
They might produce a huge pile of "verdicts" that nobody respects, which still leaves open the possibility of the victim being taken to a fair court, with the same result as if he had used the fair court in the first place, except he loses the money he paid to the corrupt one.
WTF? Double jeopardy is okee dokee in ACland as long as the first verdict was from a court you don't like?

Quote:
This is not a long term business plan, and the corrupt firm will quickly go out of business.
What corruption? Acquittals R Us rules exactly as promised every time. How is that dishonest or illegal?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:53 PM   #206
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
LOL @ the defendant giving a ****, as long as the case against him can't go forward.



Nonsense. The mobster just passed them a fat roll of hundreds to put on a black robe and say, "Not guilty." That's business, baby.



WTF? Double jeopardy is okee dokee in ACland as long as the first verdict was from a court you don't like?



What corruption? Acquittals R Us rules exactly as promised every time. How is that dishonest or illegal?
Again, a complete absence of thought or effort in this post. Come back when you're ready to have an honest debate and not copy and paste the same post over and over again.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:45 PM   #207
TorontoCFE
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 544
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
EXCEPT THE VICTIM'S SECURITY FIRM WILL NOT WORK WITH ACQUITTALS R US. THE VICTIM WILL NOT GO TO THE ****TY COURT AND GET SCREWED

That means that the corrupt security firm cannot offer the service you claim they do. Period. They might produce a huge pile of "verdicts" that nobody respects, which still leaves open the possibility of the victim being taken to a fair court, with the same result as if he had used the fair court in the first place, except he loses the money he paid to the corrupt one.

This is not a long term business plan, and the corrupt firm will quickly go out of business.
I think it's not correct to assume 2 firms always wish to co-operate.

There is a possiblity a firm could do quite well simply providing protection from others. They may not be able to go after villians after the fact (since that requires co-operation) but could provide deterrence quite well, no questions asked. Not just criminals but I bet a certain segment of law-abiding people would support a philosophy and there would be a profitable market.

Besides that, it is very likely that some competitors will be created to suit the varied beliefs of their customers. There are certainly enough divisive isues that large segments are passionate about.
Is Sharia Ltd likely to run into areas of dispute with Liberal Inc.? Ya and if they want to keep their customers happy, neither may back down.

Disputes in this case deadlock without ever worrying about who or how biased an arbitrator is.
TorontoCFE is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:54 PM   #208
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
LOL @ the defendant giving a ****, as long as the case against him can't go forward.



Nonsense. The mobster just passed them a fat roll of hundreds to put on a black robe and say, "Not guilty." That's business, baby.



WTF? Double jeopardy is okee dokee in ACland as long as the first verdict was from a court you don't like?



What corruption? Acquittals R Us rules exactly as promised every time. How is that dishonest or illegal?
Strawn,

Do me a favor and really read this one.

There are only 2 scenarios that can happen.

1.) The two security firms work together and get the case into a private court.

2.) The two security firms can't get together and get the court into a private court. Now the only options are to let the case drop (the victim is going to be pretty damn pissed making this option inviable) or to go to war with each other.


Your hypothetical that the mobster can block the case by using a non-cooperative security firm can't happen. If they tried this, it would be war. So your options are cooperate or armed conflict.

And the firms that have to do the least amount of armed conflict are going to be the ones that can offer their services the cheapest because armed conflict is extremely expensive leaving only the firms who cooperate. When your two business choices are make a phone call, or armed conflict, it's pretty much a no brainer.

But before you go all "ZOMG coercion" on me, REMEMBER THIS ONE IMPORTANT ASPECT:

The courts are divorced from the security firms. All this so called oligarchy is doing is getting both sides of a dispute to agree on a private court. The private courts are the ones making the ruling. And I've already explained why those private courts would be fair due to the market.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:56 PM   #209
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoCFE View Post
I think it's not correct to assume 2 firms always wish to co-operate.

There is a possiblity a firm could do quite well simply providing protection from others. They may not be able to go after villians after the fact (since that requires co-operation) but could provide deterrence quite well, no questions asked. Not just criminals but I bet a certain segment of law-abiding people would support a philosophy and there would be a profitable market.

Besides that, it is very likely that some competitors will be created to suit the varied beliefs of their customers. There are certainly enough divisive isues that large segments are passionate about.
Is Sharia Ltd likely to run into areas of dispute with Liberal Inc.? Ya and if they want to keep their customers happy, neither may back down.

Disputes in this case deadlock without ever worrying about who or how biased an arbitrator is.
Good post! This handwringing over "zomg what if I like a different arbitrator" would be more compelling if state intervention had somehow put an end to international disputes. Throwing up a roadblock here is basically double standardism in action.
 
Old 05-01-2009, 01:59 PM   #210
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoCFE View Post
I think it's not correct to assume 2 firms always wish to co-operate.

There is a possiblity a firm could do quite well simply providing protection from others. They may not be able to go after villians after the fact (since that requires co-operation) but could provide deterrence quite well, no questions asked. Not just criminals but I bet a certain segment of law-abiding people would support a philosophy and there would be a profitable market.
Yes a firm could do quite well simply providing protection provided their own customers never harm anybody. But once they start harming people or even being accused of harming people, they're going to have to cooperate with investigations or become outlaws.

Quote:
Besides that, it is very likely that some competitors will be created to suit the varied beliefs of their customers. There are certainly enough divisive isues that large segments are passionate about.
Is Sharia Ltd likely to run into areas of dispute with Liberal Inc.? Ya and if they want to keep their customers happy, neither may back down.

Disputes in this case deadlock without ever worrying about who or how biased an arbitrator is.
Sharia vs Liberal doesn't matter. Remember, the security firms are DIVORCED from the private courts. Both sides just have to agree on a private court to avoid armed conflict. And both sides will only agree on a court that is unbiased which will be created by the market.

And the only things that can be litigated upon is harm. So most issues you are thinking in your head won't be prosecutable. Try bringing a case to court arguing that you are being harmed by somebody being gay. Good luck with that.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:08 PM   #211
TorontoCFE
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 544
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
Good post! This handwringing over "zomg what if I like a different arbitrator" would be more compelling if state intervention had somehow put an end to international disputes. Throwing up a roadblock here is basically double standardism in action.
It would just bring the problem of a lack of final arbiter to a local level.

Maybe society would fragment completely or maybe it would force people
to get more homogeneous ideas. Hard to say.
TorontoCFE is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:12 PM   #212
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoCFE View Post
It would just bring the problem of a lack of final arbiter to a local level.

Maybe society would fragment completely or maybe it would force people
to get more homogeneous ideas. Hard to say.
Or maybe people would stick to disagreeing about things with direct, measurable harms.

EDIT: disagree is a terrible word, here, but I can't think of the right one. They would only take action is closer, though still not there.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:17 PM   #213
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Strawn,

Do me a favor and really read this one.
I always really read them.

Quote:
There are only 2 scenarios that can happen.

1.) The two security firms work together and get the case into a private court.

2.) The two security firms can't get together and get the court into a private court. Now the only options are to let the case drop (the victim is going to be pretty damn pissed making this option inviable) or to go to war with each other.
Say what? I thought war was prohibitively expensive. Why would one business declare war on another over a $10,000 stickup job?

Quote:
The courts are divorced from the security firms.
Says who? Are they regulated?

Quote:
All this so called oligarchy is doing is getting both sides of a dispute to agree on a private court. The private courts are the ones making the ruling. And I've already explained why those private courts would be fair due to the market.
You have not explained why the market for guaranteed acquittals would be neglected, other than by saying the rulings would not be respected, to which our friend the defendant says, "I'll show you what you can do with respected. I'm outta here, bye!"

Last edited by Strawn; 05-01-2009 at 02:32 PM.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:41 PM   #214
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Say what? I thought war was prohibitively expensive. Why would one business declare war on another over a $10,000 stickup job?
See #1.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:50 PM   #215
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Say what? I thought war was prohibitively expensive. Why would one business declare war on another over a $10,000 stickup job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
See #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
1.) The two security firms work together and get the case into a private court.
We have already established that no security firm the plaintiff is likely to hire will work with a subsidiary of Acquittals R Us anyway.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:53 PM   #216
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Can we just concede that Strawn's sociopathic security firm could exist, and could perform the service he describes so I never have to see Acquittals R Us again?

I mean, it's obvious to anybody that thinks through the full consequences of the existence of the firm he describes that it won't last long or be an effective force, but he's never going to actually read and attempt to understand the alternate view.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 02:59 PM   #217
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Can we just concede that Strawn's sociopathic security firm could exist, and could perform the service he describes so I never have to see Acquittals R Us again?
That's a zinger. Since when is taking advantage of huge demand by providing honest services a "sociopathic" trait in the free market?

Quote:
I mean, it's obvious to anybody that thinks through the full consequences of the existence of the firm he describes that it won't last long or be an effective force, but he's never going to actually read and attempt to understand the alternate view.
Not an argument.

If your case is so "obvious" then why are you doing such a poor job of making it? And why don't you address my points directly instead of through snide side comments to others?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:02 PM   #218
BreakfastBurrito
adept
 
BreakfastBurrito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: eagerly awaiting the rapture
Posts: 904
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
You have not explained why the market for guaranteed acquittals would be neglected, other than by saying the rulings would not be respected, to which our friend the defendant says, "I'll show you what you can do with respected. I'm outta here, bye!"
In order for a private court to gain any type of business, they need to be able to convince two separate conflicting parties that their court would be a just arbitrator of their dispute. Acquittals R Us would never get a case. With all of the actual interesting questions and debates about how private courts would or wouldn't work, your hang up on Acquittals R Us seems bizarre.
BreakfastBurrito is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:04 PM   #219
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
If your case is so "obvious" then why are you doing such a poor job of making it? And why don't you address my points directly instead of through snide side comments to others?
You've completely ignored my points, or just handwaved them away.

Quote:
That's a zinger. Since when is taking advantage of huge demand by providing honest services a "sociopathic" trait in the free market?
It's sociopathic because they're refusing to work with anyone.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:11 PM   #220
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Say what? I thought war was prohibitively expensive. Why would one business declare war on another over a $10,000 stickup job?
There are going to be some occasions when the co-operative security firms are forced to go to war IF there are so called firms (I call them protection rackets) that won't negotiate to decide cases in private courts. Just like if I hire a security firm to protect my vessel from Pirates and the pirates keep attacking. They are going to have to step up and use armed conflict to defend their clients.

But you have 2 types of firms.

Firm A: This is the firm that negotiates with all firms that are willing to bring cases to neutral courts to be decided and willing to do battle with the few outlaws that exist.

Firm B: This is the firm that has to do battle with every single firm in existence because it only protects criminals.

Which firm will be extremely more profitable and efficient?

And without black markets, how are these criminals going to pay for wars? Even an organized crime spree is not enough money to fund non-stop war against every single security firm in existence. You would need black markets to even attempt this.

Quote:
Says who? Are they regulated?
You're right. Because any plaintiff would choose to bring his case to the court that is owned by security firm of his opponent. Yup, that would happen.

Come on. The only courts that would get any cases consistently are the fair and balanced courts. Do you dispute this point specifically?



Quote:
You have not explained why the market for guaranteed acquittals would be neglected, other than by saying the rulings would not be respected, to which our friend the defendant says, "I'll show you what you can do with respected. I'm outta here, bye!"
OK, we're going to try this again:

In order to have an acquittal, both sides need to FIRST agree on a MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE COURT. There will be no trial until both sides agree on a court.

The plaintiff against Bob would not agree on his aquittals are us court so that trial would never happen.

Now if Bob's security firm is unable to agree on private courts with the other security firms, Bob's security firm can now ONLY PROTECT BOB WITH FORCE.

So now Bob's firm is going to fall into category B of firms that have to go to war with everybody. That firm will quickly go bankrupt because it is doing battle with other firms that have the majority of their money earned by simply making phone calls and negotiating peaceful trials. Firm A is sustainable business, Firm B, constant war, is NOT.

The Firm A's would simply have to outlast the Firm B's and eventually they'd go under. Once and awhile they might pop up again on the fringes of society, but this is no different from the state.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:15 PM   #221
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
You've completely ignored my points, or just handwaved them away.
Show where I did this please, and I will gladly answer it now.

Quote:
It's sociopathic because they're refusing to work with anyone.
Are you joking? They're working with their clients.

The defendant pays them for an acquittal, they provide such. Transaction competed. Both parties go home happy.

That's the way it's supposed to happen in the free market.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:25 PM   #222
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Are you joking? They're working with their clients.

The defendant pays them for an acquittal, they provide such. Transaction competed. Both parties go home happy.

That's the way it's supposed to happen in the free market.
How are they securing the acquittal? How stupid do the victims of crime have to be for your scenario to work?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:27 PM   #223
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
EXCEPT THE VICTIM'S SECURITY FIRM WILL NOT WORK WITH ACQUITTALS R US. THE VICTIM WILL NOT GO TO THE ****TY COURT AND GET SCREWED

That means that the corrupt security firm cannot offer the service you claim they do. Period. They might produce a huge pile of "verdicts" that nobody respects, which still leaves open the possibility of the victim being taken to a fair court, with the same result as if he had used the fair court in the first place, except he loses the money he paid to the corrupt one.

This is not a long term business plan, and the corrupt firm will quickly go out of business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
LOL @ the defendant giving a ****, as long as the case against him can't go forward.



Nonsense. The mobster just passed them a fat roll of hundreds to put on a black robe and say, "Not guilty." That's business, baby.



WTF? Double jeopardy is okee dokee in ACland as long as the first verdict was from a court you don't like?



What corruption? Acquittals R Us rules exactly as promised every time. How is that dishonest or illegal?
This is my previous post that said this, and your handwave response, btw.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:55 PM   #224
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I saw this deluge of stupidity coming and took a forum break =)

If there is anything important that I missed, please point it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Blame and Resentment
BENEATH THIS NOTION OF unfairness and the obligation to right it are the implications of fault and contempt. There is an unspoken, but very real, contempt for the rich yacht owner, contempt for the factory owner, contempt for the executive—in other words, a general contempt for wealthy people. Today, there is an outpouring of contempt in the media for the drug companies, the oil companies, and the Wal-Marts of the world. In a nutshell, each proposition made at that evening’s dinner painted a picture of a villain, a victim, and an emancipator—in other words, the rich, the poor, and the proponent of those propositions (with the help of the State), respectively.

The message implied in each proposition is not simply that “the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich.” The very heart of each of the propositions is that the cause of the poor being too poor is that the rich are too rich. In one sense, we are told that the “haves” are at fault for preventing the “have-nots” from gain-ing wealth, and, in another sense, that if the “haves” had less, the“have-nots” would have more by default. The evidence shows that both these assertions are fallacious.

Expressions such as “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” and “greedy rich” exhibit a deeply rooted resentment of the rich. As Robert Solomon explains, “Through resentment we make it sound as though we are lucky not to have those things that we want but don’t have. We feel self-righteous precisely because we are not rich.” Jean-Paul Sartre said that resentment is an act by which we escape responsibility for a world that we find too difficult to accept. Still worse, resentment can give way to schadenfreude—taking joy in other people’s suffering. This vindictive form of resentment is revealed in statements such as, “They finally got what was coming,” relative to the news that someone wealthy has had a setback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 In a World of Inequality, are there Really Villains and Victims?
IN A WORLD IN which economic inequalities are universal, why do so many envision the existence of villains and victims? Does this view stem from a belief that there is a static quantity of wealth or resources in the world, and when someone gets more than an equal share, someone else must receive less? Or does the view stem from a belief that rich people have garnered their wealth undeservingly, by unscrupulous, greedy, or inconsiderate behavior? Or does it stem from envy, resentment, or simply a blatant attempt to increase one’s own status by decreasing that of another?

For many, possibly most, such villain/victim assertions do not stem from any deep reasoning. The ideas are simply a regurgitation of what they have read and heard in the news. Spewing the words and ideas of others is particularly likely when one belongs to a political, social, religious, or racial camp. Camp leaders, especially political ones, appear in the news daily, damning their adversarial camp leaders with senseless headline-grabbing charges designed to excite their followers and, hopefully, capture a few more gullible camp converts.

For those who join a camp, the spokesperson becomes similar to kin, and those in opposing camps automatically become foes; the people involved resemble participants in a feud. No matter what the kin says, those in the camp will accept it and despise whatever the foe advocates. It’s easier to become a parrot when aligned with any group, be it political, social, religious, or racial, than to think for oneself. Regardless of the type of group, the spokesperson will tell the crowd what they want to hear.

Crowds gather to support their kin and maybe pick up another malicious one-liner to put in their quiver to shoot mindlessly at the next foe they encounter. Unless one is critical and truly considers whether the spokesperson’s statements actually make sense, one may likely continue to advocate policies that would produce the very opposite of what one actually desires. Rent control laws, drug and alcohol prohibitions, and government subsidies are just a few examples where such policies produced the opposite of their desired goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5 The Them vs. Us Syndrome
DURING THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL campaign, one candidate decried, “Two Americas: One privileged, the other burdened. One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.”

Demagogic statements like these simply are pleas to the masses: “Vote for me, and I’ll get you your fair share of wealth, by taking it from those who have more than you. Vote for me, and I’ll rob Peter (that’s them) to pay Paul (that’s us).” Pitting the rich against the poor is only one of the many foot-stomping campaign themes based on the mind-set of “them versus us.” Self-appointed leaders pit white people against black people, men against women, factory owners against workers, foreigners against Americans, and new immigrants against descendants of older ones. Blaming one group for the ills of another is a sure way to provoke and sustain ill will between the groups.

Following these Pied Pipers of divisive protest and their pipe dreams is a good way to ensure that you never get what they promise or what you desire. Blaming others for what we don’t have directs our energy and ingenuity away from the only reliably effective source of achievement in the world—self-reliance. Once we realize that no one owes us a life free of misery, we actually begin to search for real remedies instead of wasting time and energy accusing others of causing our woes and expecting restitution.

Every U.S. election campaign is a tug-of-war between Robin Hoods, each accusing the other of either giving too little and taking too much or taking too little and giving too much. People get angry about their every grievance because they are constantly bombarded with the notion that they are the victims of someone’s plot to take an unfair advantage of them.

With such stories constantly in the news, it’s easy to develop a conspiracy complex or even paranoia about anything we don’t like by blaming it on someone else “getting away with murder.” If gasoline prices are too high, blame the oil companies. If drug prices are too high, blame the drug companies. Tomorrow it will be a different scapegoat, someone new who owes us a free this or a cheaper that. Just stay tuned and our Congressman or news reporter will give us the latest culprit in vogue. The bumper sticker “Corporate Greed vs. Human Need” exemplifies this kind of paranoia.

In a democratic society in which everyone has a say about everyone else’s lifestyle, it’s no wonder we spend so much time debating one man’s pet peeve and another’s grand solution. In a self-reliant society, pet peeves may keep us awake at night, but in a democratic society, we can spend a lifetime of energy creating one pet peeve after another and offering “our” solution, because we now have a voice. Of course, who doesn’t want to be heard, particularly when we know that someone with political power over others will listen? So the “them vs. us” notion permeates the news and becomes the publicized rationale for new legislation, and yes, may even alter our own thinking, if we ignore common sense.

Consider one of the most horrific “them vs. us” political campaigns in recent history: the Jewish “them” versus the Aryan “us” campaign waged in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Many were led to believe that Jews were a detriment to society and that a fair and just solution (named Endlösung der Judenfrage [The Final Solution of the Jewish Question]) was to isolate and eradicate them.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-01-2009, 04:02 PM   #225
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
How are they securing the acquittal?
They are not "securing" an acquittal. They, the court, are ruling their client, the defendant, acquitted.

Quote:
How stupid do the victims of crime have to be for your scenario to work?
Since when do two private parties need a third party's permission to conduct business in the free market? Whether anyone else "recognizes" their transaction is beside the point. Acquittals R Us does not need anyone's permission to operate, nor is there any authority with competence to overrule its judgements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
This is my previous post that said this, and your handwave response, btw.
Simply reposting the entire exchange doesn't add anything. Show me your specific question and where I handwaved it, and I will do my best to set things right.
Strawn is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive