Welcome to Wealth Gap Tower

Written By: - Date published: 3:52 pm, April 24th, 2015 - 452 comments
Categories: cartoons, class war, equality - Tags: , , , ,

Cartoonist Toby Morris has a great post up illustrating the wealth gap in NZ at The Wireless, based on discussions with inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke.

wealth gap tower

 

Click through for the whole thing and make sure to share it on social media.

452 comments on “Welcome to Wealth Gap Tower ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Heather Grimwood 1
    24 April 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Re comments in Toby Morris’ article : One social premise when first state houses were built was that the social mixing inherently produced would indeed make for understanding of different others……state schools and communal transport with opportunity for conversation at bus/train stop and while travelling ( not many cars then) aided this. The really wealthy of course weren’t in need of housing, but professional and bluecollar workers, old and young, were dispersed through the housing ‘estates’.
    Desirable locations were used, the argument being that ‘Jack deserved as good as his master’.
    What has happened to compassion and strong good intent transformed into action from those who managed our country’s coffers then and what we have(n’t) now?

    • BassGuy 1.1
      25 April 2015 at 11:51 am

      I think what happened is that those with decided that they deserved it and they also decided that those without deserved what they got. They widely promulgated this idea, and then we get people who think if you have nothing, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough. This is known as the Just World hypothesis.

      It never occurs to some of us that the poor may work harder than their bosses.

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        7 May 2015 at 7:45 am

        “It never occurs to some of us that the poor may work harder than their bosses.”

        well observed sir

  2. Rolf 2
    24 April 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Interesting story, but only partly true. I don’t give much for the beancounter smartiepants who created their wealth with smart schemes that made other work and pay for their wealth, for instance those who buy homes and let the tenants pay the mortgage. Those are the ones we have to “tax to death”. The hard working people that create wealth by frugal living or building capital through export trade and manufacturing are the ones we should favour with no taxes and good living. Lets’s favour the creators, not the parasites.

    • McFlock 2.1
      24 April 2015 at 5:30 pm

      Your “for instance” come close to parasiting: gaining the benefit while not doing the work.

      • Rolf 2.1.1
        24 April 2015 at 6:11 pm

        What I say is that this sort of wealth building, borrowing cheap money, buying a home not to live in, letting tenants pay for the interest and mortgage with their work, then drive up the price and sell it tax free for an inflated sum, that is the sort of wealth building that should be taxed to the max to prevent it. These sort of people make others work to create their wealth while doing no real work themselves. People who build wealth with hard work and producing something should not be taxed.

        • ICD 2.1.1.1
          25 April 2015 at 1:11 pm

          What you seem to forget is that these “beancounting smartiepants” carry the financial risk of providing housing to those that can’t afford or choose not to afford buying a house. If purchasing property was as easy as you make it out to be, surely just about everybody would be in on it.

          Being able to purchase a 2nd or even 3rd property requires sound finances, otherwise the banks wouldn’t touch you with a 10 foot barge pole. So, where did this initial money come from? My guess would be hard work in the first instance. Sure, there are people out there born into money and those that scheme and wheel and deal. However, there are a lot of mum & dad investors working hard, putting money aside and creating a little nest egg for themselves or their kids. Wrong? Surely not.

          Why are owners of multiple properties not seen for what, in part, they do, i.e. provide housing for those unwilling or unable to own.

          PS: Selling for inflated prices? Surely you jest!? That inflated price is called “market value”. Whether or not you or I perceive that value to be too high is a different matter. If people didn’t or couldn’t afford to buy at that inflated price, surely they wouldn’t and prices would come down – and no, it’s not all the foreigners buying up every bit of real estate.

          • Tracey 2.1.1.1.1
            7 May 2015 at 7:49 am

            “i.e. provide housing for those unwilling or unable to own.”

            Maybe cos it is an accidental by-product of what they are trying to achieve? It doesnt negate that they have offered a home to rent to someone who needs a home but what if, they weren’t incentivized to invest in property… would house prices be lower and the renters might be able to buy?

            And no, foreigners are not buying up every piece of real estate but they together with returning ex pats and resident investors are buying a god chunk of the homes to be rented out. Barfoots are sending out notices advising people that if they want the highest price in this market they need to use Barfoots 500 Chinese agents with contacts in, China.

        • BassGuy 2.1.1.2
          25 April 2015 at 2:56 pm

          The CEO at my work is on around $100k/year. The (production) manager under him is on around $55k/year. The person immediately below him, who took half of that manager’s workload (and works a minimum of one unpaid hour per week) is on $31,200/year or $15/hour.

          The people one step down from there, at the bottom, get minimum wage.

          The pay of the entire productive staff, added together, is about equal to the pay of the CEO who has enough time in a week to fulfill two roles in the business.

          You argue for favouring creators with no taxes, yet here is a fairly typical example of the creators themselves being paid little and the person at the top, with no creative input, taking the reward.

          • ICD 2.1.1.2.1
            25 April 2015 at 3:24 pm

            Without any further detail this is pretty useless to either argue for or against. Sounds like a rather small company.

            CEO $100k, next guy down $55k, next one down from there $31k. Those two alone combine to $86k. Leaves exactly how many more productive staff? Two?

            Remember that the “unproductive” guys as you call them are the ones that “create” business and “create” employment, all the while carrying the inherent risk of that business failing, more often than not with debt hanging over them.

            Depending on the business, it’s up to the owner to pay the CEO $100k, whether you agree or not. His business, his risk. You’re forgetting that the “productive ones” are employed solely due to the someone building a business. Without that one, everybody else would be sitting at home, twiddling thumbs.

            • BassGuy 2.1.1.2.1.1
              30 April 2015 at 1:22 am

              Oh please. Don’t pull that Randian crap on me – I don’t believe in the heroic entrepreneur, struggling against thieving governments and lazy yet greedy workers. I’ve never met that guy, I don’t think anybody has.

              There are five productive staff in my workplace, including the one on $31k, not including the manager.

              You worked quite hard to slip in your weasel words, and cast employees in a negative light: “sitting at home twiddling their thumbs,” you call them lazy and without initiative. You also cite the business owner as the person who (heroically) takes on the risk (“his business, his risk”) of creating work for the employee who should probably just be grateful that someone has deigned to give them something to do.

              It’s funny, because I thought it was the customer who created the work. They’d come along, flash some cash, and then the entrepreneur would spot an opportunity to make someone pay more than the cost of the desired work, any needed help would be brought along (also known as the employee, or the contractor). No work created by a business owner there, it’s all done by the customer.

              In this particular case, the business owner is about as heroic as a dog returning a stick to its owner: this business sucks up a lot of taxpayer funds. (Sometimes millions of dollars, turned into a mixture of really cheap time and company assets.)

              I suppose it might be considered heroic if your goal is to transfer taxpayer funds into private hands – and when he steals my wages, when he refuses to pay me for public holidays or overtime, crosses off worked hours on my time sheets, that’s precisely what he’s done by transferring funding intended to pay me for work done directly into his business account.

              So in a fashion, one that doesn’t require any squinting or imagination, I’m a shareholder. It costs me to work there and I’ve worked hundreds of hours for free over the years. I’ve seen someone work thousands for free. We don’t get anything for it, except the knowledge that we’ve made someone richer and gained nothing for it. That certainly sates my hunger.

              If this business folded (and this is the ultimate part of the risk that you talk about) they’d sell off all the taxpayer-funded assets, write the business down as a tax loss for the parent business, and then kick us to the curb without our backpay. The owner wouldn’t have lost a thing.

              So I think you’ve really failed to make your point, but you did help me make mine.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.1.2
              7 May 2015 at 7:50 am

              “Sounds like a rather small company”

              Don’t they count even though small business is the life blood of NZ in many ways?

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.1.3
              7 May 2015 at 7:51 am

              …and without the workers how successful would the business be? It is a two-sided coin.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                9 May 2015 at 8:17 pm

                No reply button on this post so here goes

                “What is fairer than voluntary interactions?”

                Your high school economic textbook may assist you in defining free-market but it apparently doesn’t help you to understand human beings and that not everyone is born equal and that voluntary can be distorted in oh so many ways both overt and covert.”

                No some people are born smarter or more physically able than others etc so what is wrong with them using that to their advantage? Provided they do not violate the rights of others (i.e. do not initiate force against another / interact in a non-voluntary manner)?

          • Stuart Hawkins 2.1.1.2.2
            27 April 2015 at 3:56 pm

            How many people can do their jobs? The fact they are on minimum wage would imply that number is high and as such supply and demand work to give us the minimum wage (or below) as the market point for their job. This means they are paid what they are worth as by definition what something is worth is what people are willing to pay for it (or in this case to sell their work for). I think your failure to grasp that is the reason you think they way you do about this.

            • BassGuy 2.1.1.2.2.1
              30 April 2015 at 12:29 am

              Well look who knows so much.

              Just about any idiot can do factory work, yet any factory work I can think of pays more than I get. This alone disproves your entire thesis (“If anybody can do a job, it’s not well paid,”). Sheet metal work, food, roof rack manufacture, these all pay more than I get.

              My job requires a technical background, a highly adaptive nature, a broad understanding of several different and decidedly dynamic areas, an ability to properly improvise at a moment’s notice, intimate knowledge of one’s equipment, plus a fairly broad knowledge of the law.

              It’s not stacking shelves, customer service, factory work, parking cars, or painting – and those roles usually get paid more than my particular position, by the way.

              When discussing the perceived failures of other people, you may want to consider not drawing conclusions from wrong assumptions.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                3 May 2015 at 6:12 am

                “Just about any idiot can do factory work, yet any factory work I can think of pays more than I get. This alone disproves your entire thesis (“If anybody can do a job, it’s not well paid,”). Sheet metal work, food, roof rack manufacture, these all pay more than I get.”

                No this statement just proves you do not understand supply and demand. Take even a high school textbook for economics and you will see this can be explained by many things i.e. not many people wanting those jobs and therefore having a restricted supply which leads to a higher equilibrium point.

                “My job requires a technical background, a highly adaptive nature, a broad understanding of several different and decidedly dynamic areas, an ability to properly improvise at a moment’s notice, intimate knowledge of one’s equipment, plus a fairly broad knowledge of the law. ”

                And yet you only get minimum wage…

                “It’s not stacking shelves, customer service, factory work, parking cars, or painting – and those roles usually get paid more than my particular position, by the way.”

                For some reason I think you are being derogatory about others profession.

                “When discussing the perceived failures of other people, you may want to consider not drawing conclusions from wrong assumptions.”

                Right back at you buddy but his time it will actually be relevant.

                • ropata …
                  5 May 2015 at 9:13 am

                  High school economics is largely fictitious.
                  There are larger forces in play: ethics and the relative bargaining power of labour and management.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 4:46 pm

                    “High school economics is largely fictitious.”

                    Supply and demand are not.

                    “There are larger forces in play: ethics and the relative bargaining power of labour and management.”

                    Nope they really don’t matter when we have free markets.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  12 May 2015 at 7:28 pm

                  No this statement just proves you do not understand supply and demand. Take even a high school textbook for economics and you will see this can be explained by many things i.e. not many people wanting those jobs and therefore having a restricted supply which leads to a higher equilibrium point.

                  It’s you who don’t understand supply and demand. Are you aware that supply and demand curves can take the form of any polynomial? Economists (and your laughable high school economic text books) have always assumed that supply and demand can be described by straight lines or simple curves. FALSE. They can be any shape at all.

                  You clearly don’t understand shit, apart from your own belief in a false dogma.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    14 May 2015 at 8:01 pm

                    You are an idiot; the statement was “Take even a high school textbook for economics and you will see this can be explained by many things i.e. not many people wanting those jobs and therefore having a restricted supply which leads to a higher equilibrium point.”.
                    Meaning that EVEN highschool economics textbooks give many reasons why this can occur.

                    Learn how to read and comprehend

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      14 May 2015 at 8:32 pm

                      No nation ever successfully built its economy or its society based on the contents of a high school economics text book; stop referring to it like its anything special or intelligent.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    16 May 2015 at 2:44 pm

                    “No nation ever successfully built its economy or its society based on the contents of a high school economics text book; stop referring to it like its anything special or intelligent.”

                    Good thing I didn’t claim anything of the sort. I did point out that reasons the other guy doesn’t know what he is talking about is available in even a high school economics textbook. This means that I do not hold high school economics textbooks as being very good.

                    So learn how to read properly or stop putting up straw man arguments; your choice.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.2.2
              7 May 2015 at 7:55 am

              “This means they are paid what they are worth as by definition what something is worth is what people are willing to pay for it (or in this case to sell their work for).”

              No, that is your definition of “worth” based on a capitalist or free market system over-layed onto them. Your definition includes a deliberate undervaluing to increase the profit for the owner in return for their risk. In other words they temper their risk by deliberately paying the least they can to those they can, not because of worth but because they will make more for themselves that way.

              If you like, this is where greed trumps all…

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                9 May 2015 at 8:13 pm

                “No, that is your definition of “worth” based on a capitalist or free market system over-layed onto them.”

                So you think the worth of things is not decided by what people voluntarily choose? Then what does determine value?

                “Your definition includes a deliberate undervaluing to increase the profit for the owner in return for their risk.”

                That is not undervaluing that is just return on investment or are you suggesting that the owner should make nothing?

                “In other words they temper their risk by deliberately paying the least they can to those they can,”

                What does this even mean? You do realise that what you are describing is the demand side of the labor market? That is just the mechanism that EVERY agent on the demand side uses to select their purchases. Each of those people is willing to provide their services for that payment, they think it fair or they would not provide their service who are you to put your judgement above theirs?

                “not because of worth but because they will make more for themselves that way.”

                In the same way people shop around when purchasing things; so again what is your point?

                “If you like, this is where greed trumps all…”

                Sorry this statement is dis-proven by the application of calculus to the formula for the calculation of profit. By doing so we can see that the profit maximizing situation is to pay at the marginal cost = marginal benefit point. Also by the fact that in a free market if you underpaid your staff in the manner you imply they would work somewhere else (I and any other person with a brain and some capital would create a competitor and steal the underpaid staff by offering higher wages; this would continue until they are paid at marginal cost = marginal benefit).

        • Stuart Hawkins 2.1.1.3
          27 April 2015 at 3:51 pm

          They did not force anyone to do anything so why do you want to punish them? The tenant is better off than they would be if they had not rent the place (this is proven by the fact they rented it rather than do ANYTHING else they could have done) and the landlord has a return for their investment (a return they are entitled to because it is the product of their efforts).
          I think that you fail to understand where the money has come from originally or why that risk taking should be rewarded.

          • ropata 2.1.1.3.1
            30 April 2015 at 2:27 am

            landlords are rent seeking parasites on the truly productive. that is why CGT and LVT are past overdue. the property speculating class are traitors to NZ

            https://youtu.be/SmsyoWCsxRY

            • Stuart Hawkins 2.1.1.3.1.1
              3 May 2015 at 6:22 am

              I asked you why they should be punished and you answer

              “landlords are rent seeking parasites on the truly productive”

              That is not the why; that is a what a selfish small minded, give me what other people have because I do not see why they have it and I don’t parasite recites by rote because they do not have an actual reason beyond the fact they want it.

              “landlords are rent seeking parasites on the truly productive”

              AGAIN I ASK HOW ARE THE SUCH? Fact is they earned something (or some relative did and used their basic human right to give to whomever they wished) and used it to create a physical asset. An asset they own and as such have every right to use as they wish; including use it to enter into ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY contacts to rent or lease to WHOMEVER THEY WANT! As they do not force anyone to do anything then their actions are none of our, or the government’s business.

              Now you see why you need to answer they why? It is because you need to explain why your greed trumps their human rights.

              • ropata …
                3 May 2015 at 11:09 pm

                Rent-seeking is any income that is unearned. An alternative definition is “profit without a corresponding cost of production”. “Economic Rent” can come from ownership of land and just “renting” it out for money. It can also come from collecting so much capital that a firm now has a monopoly and can set the price independent of supply/demand considerations, It can be from government monopoly granting, control of other “land” like our rivers, broadband spectrum, or “mineral rights” of land. It can come from control of financial assets like capital gains, dividends, and interest on loans(especially usury). It can also come from political favors from the government.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  4 May 2015 at 6:21 am

                  If I own something I have every right to enter into voluntary agreements with others over how they may use it and it is not being parasitic or getting income that is unearned. If you define it as such you are just plain wrong.

                  As to everything else you have a problem with just institute free markets and that all fixes itself.

                  • ropata …
                    4 May 2015 at 11:59 pm

                    The “free market” is an illusion. How about a fair market?

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      5 May 2015 at 6:48 pm

                      “The “free market” is an illusion. How about a fair market?”

                      What is fairer than voluntary interactions?

                    • Gosman …
                      6 May 2015 at 9:10 am

                      Your problem is who defines fair and how do they do it?

                    • ropata …
                      6 May 2015 at 8:11 pm

                      The Commerce Commission or a similar body. Preventing cartels, collusion, kickbacks and other such practices that arise when markets are unregulated. The Employment Relations Authority to uphold wage laws, working conditions and safety. Unions to advocate on behalf of working people.

                      These organisations were born of necessity.

                    • Tracey …
                      7 May 2015 at 8:00 am

                      “What is fairer than voluntary interactions?”

                      Your high school economic textbook may assist you in defining free-market but it apparently doesn’t help you to understand human beings and that not everyone is born equal and that voluntary can be distorted in oh so many ways both overt and covert.

    • Stuart Hawkins 2.2
      27 April 2015 at 3:47 pm

      Why are we taxing people who provide houses for those who have none? Such a sentiment is anathema to free will, free enterprise and the creation of wealth. Simply put doing as you suggest would mean there would be no houses for these people to live in.

      • ropata 2.2.1
        30 April 2015 at 2:36 am

        because you are doing nothing productive just seeking rent and perversely incentivised to gamble on capital gains and inflate a debt fuelled bubble. also marginalising an entire generation who are locked out of the game.

        https://youtu.be/g5kc9RepC1Q

        • Stuart Hawkins 2.2.1.1
          3 May 2015 at 6:30 am

          You said

          “because you are doing nothing productive”

          Really? They why to tenants rent the places? If providing rental properties is doing nothing productive then nobody would want to rent as they would be, by definition, paying for nothing at all.

          “just seeking rent and perversely incentivised to gamble on capital gains and inflate a debt fuelled bubble”

          Just stating that something is happening does not make it so, this claim needs substantiation and I can guarantee you do not want to put what passes as evidence up here for me to pull to shreds. That being said please go right ahead I haven’t had a good laugh in days.

          “Simply put doing as you suggest would mean there would be no houses for these people to live in.”

          Yeah I forgot supply and demand don’t exist anymore, my bad…

          I am beginning to fear you are a lost cause but I hope you prove me wrong there and actually start asking the why yourself.

          • ropata 2.2.1.1.1
            3 May 2015 at 11:18 pm

            Rent seeking and housing bubbles are exploitation of the disadvantaged who don’t happen to have Mummy and Daddy buying them a house for their birthday. An increasing proportion of kiwis are being soaked for rent and have no chance of entering an inflated housing bubble. It’s in the interest of FJK, bankers, spruikers and elites to keep pumping their ponzi scheme of course.

            There is a reason that home ownership is crashing … it’s deliberate

            • Stuart Hawkins 2.2.1.1.1.1
              4 May 2015 at 6:24 am

              “Rent seeking and housing bubbles are exploitation of the disadvantaged who don’t happen to have Mummy and Daddy buying them a house for their birthday. An increasing proportion of kiwis are being soaked for rent and have no chance of entering an inflated housing bubble. It’s in the interest of FJK, bankers, spruikers and elites to keep pumping their ponzi scheme of course.

              There is a reason that home ownership is crashing … it’s deliberate”

              You need to prove this, you CAN NOT make a claim like this without an explanation and support. Seems to me you are some left wing wannabe who sees others have things he does not and thinks it unfair, well you taking it from them is what is unfair.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  5 May 2015 at 6:16 am

                  “Adam Smith branded those who pocketed the nation’s rents as “The Public Enemy”

                  So you think Adam Smith’s ideas should be followed to the letter do you?

                  “I don’t NEED to prove the obvious,”

                  So it is obvious landlords are parasites? They enter into voluntary agreements with others, they live normal lives, they breathe and eat food. Nope nothing obviously parasitic there.

                  “please check my comment history for further references.”

                  Ohh ok I can go through thousands of lines of text looking for something you may or may not have written in the past that explains your nonsense? That is not how a discussion works.

                  “But this lot should be a good starter for you.”

                  I have read the first and it does not have have anything to do with your claims, I will not waste my time on your lies and cheap deception.

                  • ropata …
                    5 May 2015 at 9:02 am

                    Individual landlords may be nice people but they are participating in an iniquitous, parasitic Kiwi habit that needs to change. It’s a systemic problem of market failure and trickle up economics.

                    You have accused me several times of writing comments with no evidence. I gave you some. I haven’t seen you back up your strange randian fantasy with anything based in reality.

                    The real shame of your attitude is that parties of the Left tend to be better for the over-all economy, human rights, and democracy. Things that libertarians claim to care about. Sadly it turns out that abusing others is their real stock in trade.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      5 May 2015 at 4:52 pm

                      “Individual landlords may be nice people but they are participating in an iniquitous, parasitic Kiwi habit that needs to change.”

                      Again I ask what makes them parasites??????

                      “It’s a systemic problem of market failure and trickle up economics.”

                      How is it such? You are just asserting it is with no substantiation at all. To argue at the same level as you all I need to do is say ‘Nope is not.’

                      “You have accused me several times of writing comments with no evidence.”

                      Because you have yet to give any.

                      “I gave you some.”

                      No you gave me links to articles that have nothing to do why landlords are parasites. You see the thing about evidence is that it actually needs to be relevant and show correlation to what you are talking about. For example I can not use a paper on the migration of turns to support a claim that John Key is retarded, just as you can not use a completely biased article about how some rich American is a douche bag to explain that landlords are parasites.

                      “I haven’t seen you back up your strange randian fantasy with anything based in reality.”

                      Nice try but I am not a Randian

                    • ropata …
                      5 May 2015 at 10:33 pm

                      You didn’t read the very first link then did you.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      6 May 2015 at 6:16 am

                      “You didn’t read the very first link then did you.”

                      Yes I did it is a very biased article called ‘Covert Operations’ and is about two billionaire brothers that it claims are waging war against Obama. This does not provide any evidence whatsoever that landlords are parasites; even if every word were true it just shows that what these brothers are doing. So that makes you an outright liar.

                    • ropata …
                      6 May 2015 at 8:24 pm

                      Umm, did you not see the hyperlink in my first sentence, on the text “The Public Enemy” ?

                      http://www.prosper.org.au/2014/08/08/three-terms-to-halt-property-speculators-in-their-tracks/

                      I think you will find you are mistaken about a great many things

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      6 May 2015 at 10:46 pm

                      “Umm, did you not see the hyperlink in my first sentence, on the text “The Public Enemy” ?”

                      Clearly I didn’t but now that I have I must ask, are you kidding? Do you actually believe that?

                      “http://www.prosper.org.au/2014/08/08/three-terms-to-halt-property-speculators-in-their-tracks/”

                      “I think you will find you are mistaken about a great many things”

                      Yes and one of those was the assumption that you had a grasp on reality. I mean what the hell? Even if we assume there is something not right being done there it is the Government that is at fault not the person following the rules and selling through voluntary transactions. Also even after it all it still does not explain why landlords are parasites.

                    • ropata …
                      7 May 2015 at 12:27 am

                      http://p2pfoundation.net/Rent

                      Rent is the parasitic income an owner can earn just by owning an asset and traditionally is referred to land property. […] below the hype of technological innovation and creative economy, the whole of capitalism is breeding a subterranean parasitic nature. […] Rent is parasitic because it is orthogonal to the line of the classic profit. Parasite means etymologically “eating at another’s table,” sucking surplus not directly but in a furtive way.

                      http://c4ss.org/content/19823

                      Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s Labor Theory of Value (LTV) shows that only labor can produce value, and thus exposes the capitalist and landlord as parasites. […]

                      Let’s now look at those facts of history. Proudhon was right, “property is theft”. The so-called right to peasant land was a feudal legal fiction established by the Norman conquest. However, the first real mass expropriation and eviction of peasants did not occur until the seizure of Church lands by Henry VIII. More than 10% of the peasantry were reduced to landless laborers by this action and were terrorized by the brutal Poor Laws enacted about the same time. Legal changes in the 17th Century converted the limited feudal right into private property right and the remaining peasants became tenents pure and simple. These were then dispossessed over the next two centuries by a series of Enclosure Acts.

                      The new-found capitalist landowners loved the Enclosure Acts, and not just for the property it gave them. The workers, lacking land, were no longer independent. Independence was a situation their masters considered “one of the greatest of evils.” Peasant communal land ownership (the traditional form) was considered “a dangerous centre of indiscipline.”

                      This evil system was imposed overseas and in this manner the so-called world market came about. Ireland was the dress rehearsal for the robbery, enslavement and genocidal murder of native people everywhere.

                      http://harpers.org/blog/2012/10/monopoly-is-theft/?single=1

                      [The game of] Monopoly is not about unleashing creativity and innovation among many competing parties, nor is it about opening markets and expanding trade or creating wealth through hard work and enlightened self-interest, the virtues Adam Smith thought of as the invisible hands that would produce a dynamic and prosperous society. It’s about shutting down the marketplace. All the players have to do is sit on their land and wait for the suckers to roll the dice.

                      Smith described such monopolist rent-seekers, who in his day were typified by the landed gentry of England, as the great parasites in the capitalist order. They avoided productive labor, innovated nothing, created nothing—the land was already there—and made a great deal of money while bleeding those who had to pay rent.

                      Bonus reading:
                      http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/private_sector_parasites/
                      http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/09/private-landlords-gain-26-7-billion-uk-taxpayer-generation-rent
                      http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent
                      http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/17570-homes-for-people-not-profit

                    • ropata …
                      7 May 2015 at 1:29 am

                      I can understand your defensive anger, you probably have pecuniary interest in the current ponzi scheme continuing for ever

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      7 May 2015 at 6:43 am

                      “Rent is the parasitic income an owner can earn just by owning an asset and traditionally is referred to land property.”

                      Oh wow you have defined it as such with no explanation or rationale at all therefore you must be correct that they are parasites… Sorry that isn’t how it works; tell me how getting income from a voluntary agreement to allow someone else to use what you own is parasitic?

                      “[…] below the hype of technological innovation and creative economy, the whole of capitalism is breeding a subterranean parasitic nature. […] Rent is parasitic because it is orthogonal to the line of the classic profit. Parasite means etymologically “eating at another’s table,” sucking surplus not directly but in a furtive way.”

                      Proven untrue by the simple fact it is a VOLUNTARY agreement between the owner and the renter whereby the renter gains certain rights to real property they do not have without the agreement.

                      Here is the definition of the term parasite

                      noun
                      1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

                      Landlords do not do the above as they do not sustain contact with their renters in a manner that would allow them to do such.

                      2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

                      Also don’t do this as they trade the use of their goods for a consideration that is agreed to by both parties (therefore it is giving a useful proper return as defined by the renter)

                      3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

                      Do even need to say anything here?

                      http://c4ss.org/content/19823

                      “Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s Labor Theory of Value (LTV) shows that only labor can produce value, and thus exposes the capitalist and landlord as parasites. […]”

                      That is a little disingenuous and totally debatable for example what makes this the final authority no value? Why can the renter not make this decision themselves when they decide the value they pay in rent is justified by what they rent? The answer is that they can and do and the Labor Theory of Value can not and does not change that.

                      “Let’s now look at those facts of history. Proudhon was right, “property is theft”.”

                      Nope is not. See I can make unsubstantiated statements too; I can also point out theories that may or may not be substantive without any supporting argument at all. The Theory of Mingled Labor shows that property is not theft. See I just did.
                      Clearly you do not understand a discussion and providing proof.

                      “The so-called right to peasant land was a feudal legal fiction established by the Norman conquest.”

                      Relevance?

                      “However, the first real mass expropriation and eviction of peasants did not occur until the seizure of Church lands by Henry VIII.”

                      Relevance?

                      “More than 10% of the peasantry were reduced to landless laborers by this action and were terrorized by the brutal Poor Laws enacted about the same time.”

                      You are correct, government is the enemy than you for so eloquently agreeing with me.

                      “Legal changes in the 17th Century converted the limited feudal right into private property right and the remaining peasants became tenents pure and simple. These were then dispossessed over the next two centuries by a series of Enclosure Acts.”

                      Again government is the bad guy in this story but I forgot about the social contract so really the government was justified in doing what it did…

                      “The new-found capitalist landowners loved the Enclosure Acts,”

                      Then by definition they were not capitalist; any claim otherwise is you trying to redefine the meaning of capitalism.

                      “and not just for the property it gave them. The workers, lacking land, were no longer independent. Independence was a situation their masters considered “one of the greatest of evils.” Peasant communal land ownership (the traditional form) was considered “a dangerous centre of indiscipline.””

                      Then by definition they were not capitalist; any claim otherwise is you trying to redefine the meaning of capitalism.

                      “This evil system was imposed overseas and in this manner the so-called world market came about.”

                      No it existed before then as the market is just people interacting.

                      “Ireland was the dress rehearsal for the robbery, enslavement and genocidal murder of native people everywhere.”

                      And that was terrible but totally irrelevant to what we are discussing.

                      http://harpers.org/blog/2012/10/monopoly-is-theft/?single=1

                      “[The game of] Monopoly is not about unleashing creativity and innovation among many competing parties, nor is it about opening markets and expanding trade or creating wealth through hard work and enlightened self-interest,”

                      No it is a game and seriously irrelevant here or are you trying to say Halo is a play through documentary or something?

                      “the virtues Adam Smith thought of as the invisible hands that would produce a dynamic and prosperous society.”

                      And it has been proven to lead to this through every age in history

                      “It’s about shutting down the marketplace.”

                      Evidence; i mean other than a board game.

                      “All the players have to do is sit on their land and wait for the suckers to roll the dice.”

                      Proof please?

                      “Smith described such monopolist rent-seekers, who in his day were typified by the landed gentry of England, as the great parasites in the capitalist order.”

                      And above we have you proving what I said all along; that you have nothing but lies at your disposal. The above never happened and could not happen therefore you are caught in another lie. I will leave you to find it but if you can’t I can give you a clue

                      Adam Smith 16 June 1723 NS (5 June 1723 OS) – 17 July 1790

                      And that should be enough.

                      “They avoided productive labor, innovated nothing, created nothing—the land was already there—and made a great deal of money while bleeding those who had to pay rent.”

                      They own it and exchange certain rights to it in order to receive a payment (the rent). Therefore by definition they are trading something for an agreed upon sum through voluntary interaction. This is all we need to prove your statement false.

                      “Bonus reading:
                      http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/private_sector_parasites/
                      http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/09/private-landlords-gain-26-7-billion-uk-taxpayer-generation-rent
                      http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent
                      http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/17570-homes-for-people-not-profit”

                      Not after the last two times; you can just paraphrase it for me

                    • ropata …
                      7 May 2015 at 9:56 pm

                      How can you carry on defending gross inequality and refusing to admit that a social contract exists? Your sense of morality is fucked.
                      Goodbye.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  9 May 2015 at 4:34 pm

                  “How can you carry on defending gross inequality”

                  Because people will earn and create wealth differently, to get equality one must abandon human rights.

                  “and refusing to admit that a social contract exists?”

                  Prove it does! Proof, by definition, is incumbent on the one claiming existence.

                  “Your sense of morality is fucked.”

                  How so? I am the one that does not want to force others to live their lives how I have decided they should. i am the one that wants to let all interaction be voluntary. I am the one that wants the rights of each person to be COMPLETELY inviolable. How does that make my morality ‘fucked’, as you so eloquently put it?

                  “Goodbye.”

                  Good riddance.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    9 May 2015 at 4:41 pm

                    The proof that it exists is ubiquitous tolerance of taxation and governance. For example, your mother was quite happy to leech off the taxpayer teat (to couch it in terms you can relate to) for your education and healthcare.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 8:34 pm

                      “The proof that it exists is ubiquitous tolerance of taxation and governance.”

                      Under threat of fines, imprisonment etc big whoop. If I had 20 million loyal soldiers I could take over NZ and force everyone to pay tax etc but that does not mean that people accept it or that it is right.

                      “For example, your mother was quite happy to leech off the taxpayer teat (to couch it in terms you can relate to) for your education and healthcare.”

                      Let me give you some very simple arguments (some of which are tautologies but I will let you work out which ones they are yourself) which prove the above statement is utterly irrelevant (just like most of your statements actually)

                      1. There is no choice to opt out therefore one is rationally obligated to maximize their recovery of resources from the system. (heads up but this destroys any and all of your arguments along the lines of ‘well you accept x’)

                      2. Any decisions made by others has no relevance on what is right.

                      3. What is being done is not necessarily what ought to be done.

                      4. What was done is not necessarily what ought to be done.

                      5. It is not easy to opt out of the government program of indoctrination that is public education nor are you able to recover the taxation that goes towards education even if you can and do opt out.

                      I would have more but I am tired and really can’t be bothered as each of these in isolation is enough to destroy that rather poor argument of yours.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    9 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

                    to get equality one must abandon human rights.

                    Bollocks.

                    Stuey is pretending that concern about the GINI coefficient is the same as demanding uniformity of outcomes. Either he believes it, in which case he’s a moron, or he’s being deliberately deceitful

                    I’m picking he’s being deceitful and he’s a moron for making the attempt.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 8:43 pm

                      “to get equality one must abandon human rights.

                      Bollocks.”

                      Really? So to do so does not require taxation? Does not require regulation to prevent people who are smarter or stronger or more knowledgeable from gaining advantage from such? It does not prevent one from using what they have earned or own to generate more wealth through purely voluntary agreements? Well I am pretty sure you said we will be taxed etc; therefore our human rights do need to be abandoned by definition.

                      “Stuey is pretending that concern about the GINI coefficient is the same as demanding uniformity of outcomes.”

                      Ohh God really GINI? Do I really have to get into how bad a statistical tool that is or should I just point out that what equality means?

                      “Either he believes it, in which case he’s a moron, or he’s being deliberately deceitful”

                      See above and the definition of equality below

                      the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability: promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.

                      Therefore in GINI coefficient terms we must have a coefficient of 0 to have equality. This means that I must believe it as it is true by definition of the terms involved. I really don’t know why I bother with you are you lie as easily as you breathe.

                      “I’m picking he’s being deceitful and he’s a moron for making the attempt.”

                      See above as any other reading is an attempt to re-define the words and I seem to think you claimed to be against that at some point.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 9:58 pm

                      No, Stuey, the only person suggesting that a good value of the GINI is zero is you, and from this absurd premise you concoct an absurd narrative.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:15 pm

                      “No, Stuey, the only person suggesting that a good value of the GINI is zero is you, and from this absurd premise you concoct an absurd narrative.”

                      Then why are you arguing for equality? Equality is a GINI of zero.

                      Now answer the other points instead of just ignoring them

                      “to get equality one must abandon human rights.

                      Bollocks.”

                      Really? So to do so does not require taxation? Does not require regulation to prevent people who are smarter or stronger or more knowledgeable from gaining advantage from such? It does not prevent one from using what they have earned or own to generate more wealth through purely voluntary agreements? Well I am pretty sure you said we will be taxed etc; therefore our human rights do need to be abandoned by definition.

                      “Stuey is pretending that concern about the GINI coefficient is the same as demanding uniformity of outcomes.”

                      Ohh God really GINI? Do I really have to get into how bad a statistical tool that is or should I just point out that what equality means?

                      “Either he believes it, in which case he’s a moron, or he’s being deliberately deceitful”

                      See above and the definition of equality below

                      the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability: promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.

                      Therefore in GINI coefficient terms we must have a coefficient of 0 to have equality. This means that I must believe it as it is true by definition of the terms involved. I really don’t know why I bother with you are you lie as easily as you breathe.

                      “I’m picking he’s being deceitful and he’s a moron for making the attempt.”

                      See above as any other reading is an attempt to re-define the words and I seem to think you claimed to be against that at some point.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:33 pm

                      Stuey is pretending that concern about the GINI coefficient is the same as demanding uniformity of outcomes. Either he believes it, in which case he’s a moron, or he’s being deliberately deceitful

                      I’m picking he’s being deceitful and he’s a moron for making the attempt.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:53 pm

                      I dunno – I still think he might be a really massive moron who’s become so dense that he’s collapsed up his own arsehole.

                      He was probably created by the Large Hadron Face-Palm-Collider

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:56 pm

                      😆

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      11 May 2015 at 6:30 pm

                      Forgot to point out that your post explicitly holds social contract theory as being the basis for government’s authority. This means that you ARE saying it is Morally and/or Legally binding.

                      “The proof that it exists is ubiquitous tolerance of taxation and governance.”

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 11:13 am

                      Nope, it merely means that social contract theory provides a legitimate basis for government.

                      Just for you, stewie, I googled “meaning of legitimate” so you might have some idea of what it means. Look at sense 2:

                      legitimate
                      adjective
                      adjective: legitimate
                      lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/

                      1.
                      conforming to the law or to rules.
                      “his claims to legitimate authority”
                      synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, recognized, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional, within the law, going by the rules, above board, valid, honest, upright; More
                      informallegit, by the book
                      “they have been given permission to run gambling halls, the only legitimate gambling in the area”
                      antonyms: illegal, illegitimate
                      (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
                      “a legitimate male heir”
                      synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, correct, authorized, sanctioned, warranted, acknowledged, recognized, approved, just; More
                      informallegit, kosher, pukka
                      “the legitimate heir”
                      antonyms: false, fraudulent
                      (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right.
                      “the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king”
                      synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, correct, authorized, sanctioned, warranted, acknowledged, recognized, approved, just; More
                      informallegit, kosher, pukka
                      “the legitimate heir”
                      antonyms: false, fraudulent
                      2.
                      able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
                      “a legitimate excuse for being late”
                      synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
                      “these are legitimate grounds for unease”
                      antonyms: invalid, unjustifiable
                      3.
                      constituting or relating to serious drama as distinct from musical comedy, revue, etc.
                      “the legitimate theatre”

                      verb
                      verb: legitimate; 3rd person present: legitimates; past tense: legitimated; past participle: legitimated; gerund or present participle: legitimating
                      lɪˈdʒɪtɪmeɪt/

                      1.
                      make lawful or justify.
                      “the regime was not legitimated by popular support”

                      Origin
                      late Middle English (in the sense ‘born of parents lawfully married to each other’): from medieval Latin legitimatus ‘made legal’, from the verb legitimare, from Latin legitimus ‘lawful’, from lex, leg- ‘law’.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:49 pm

                      McFlock no reply button to your post

                      “Nope, it merely means that social contract theory provides a legitimate basis for government.”

                      It holds its legitimacy by being legally and/or morally binding due to having been accepted as the basis for government by the people being governed. If somebody does not accept it then the government has no legitimacy to govern that person; this is the ENTIRE point of SCT as an argument for the legitimacy of government. This makes you copy and past of the definition of legitimate irrelevant as we are discussing if it is legally and/or morally binding (if it has been accepted or not)

                      Just for you, stewie, I googled “meaning of legitimate” so you might have some idea of what it means. Look at sense 2:

                      legitimate
                      adjective
                      adjective: legitimate
                      lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/

                      1.
                      conforming to the law or to rules.
                      “his claims to legitimate authority”
                      synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, recognized, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional, within the law, going by the rules, above board, valid, honest, upright; More
                      informallegit, by the book
                      “they have been given permission to run gambling halls, the only legitimate gambling in the area”
                      antonyms: illegal, illegitimate
                      (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
                      “a legitimate male heir”
                      synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, correct, authorized, sanctioned, warranted, acknowledged, recognized, approved, just; More
                      informallegit, kosher, pukka
                      “the legitimate heir”
                      antonyms: false, fraudulent
                      (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right.
                      “the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king”
                      synonyms: rightful, lawful, genuine, authentic, real, true, proper, correct, authorized, sanctioned, warranted, acknowledged, recognized, approved, just; More
                      informallegit, kosher, pukka
                      “the legitimate heir”
                      antonyms: false, fraudulent
                      2.
                      able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
                      “a legitimate excuse for being late”
                      synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
                      “these are legitimate grounds for unease”
                      antonyms: invalid, unjustifiable
                      3.
                      constituting or relating to serious drama as distinct from musical comedy, revue, etc.
                      “the legitimate theatre”

                      verb
                      verb: legitimate; 3rd person present: legitimates; past tense: legitimated; past participle: legitimated; gerund or present participle: legitimating
                      lɪˈdʒɪtɪmeɪt/

                      1.
                      make lawful or justify.
                      “the regime was not legitimated by popular support”

                      Origin
                      late Middle English (in the sense ‘born of parents lawfully married to each other’): from medieval Latin legitimatus ‘made legal’, from the verb legitimare, from Latin legitimus ‘lawful’, from lex, leg- ‘law’.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:10 pm

                      McFlock no reply button to your post

                      “Nope, it merely means that social contract theory provides a legitimate basis for government.”

                      It holds its legitimacy by being legally and/or morally binding due to having been accepted as the basis for government by the people being governed. If somebody does not accept it then the government has no legitimacy to govern that person; this is the ENTIRE point of SCT as an argument for the legitimacy of government. This makes you copy and past of the definition of legitimate irrelevant as we are discussing if it is legally and/or morally binding (if it has been accepted or not)

                      Nope. You, once again, are the only one fixated on the narrow criteria of “legally and/or morally binding”.

                      If somebody does not accept the social contract, then they challenge the government or leave. Otherwise they implicitly accept some imposition upon themselves in exchange for the wider benefits of living in a society with an effective government. There’s no legal or moral justification, it’s simply a description of how governments form and gain legitimacy and a rational justification as to why that government is better than the alternatives facing that society.

                      If somebody does not accept it then the government has no legitimacy to govern that person

                      If that person wishes to enjoy the benefits of remaining in that society, then that person challenges the government to a certain level then accepts the remaining imposition. The concept of a person living within a society while not being bound by the rules of that society is pretty farcical: to use your trolleyed website analogy, the mafiosi wihtin a society might refuse to accept the gorvernment of that society, so would you then argue that the government has no legitimacy to imprison them for racketeering or murder? Hell, by your logic anyone who breaks a law refuses to accept the legitimacy of that law, so therefore cannot be legally or morally sanctioned for breaking that law. Try that as a defense when you’re finally arrested for goatfucking.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      14 May 2015 at 8:27 pm

                      McFlock no reply button to your post

                      “Nope, it merely means that social contract theory provides a legitimate basis for government.”

                      It holds its legitimacy by being legally and/or morally binding due to having been accepted as the basis for government by the people being governed. If somebody does not accept it then the government has no legitimacy to govern that person; this is the ENTIRE point of SCT as an argument for the legitimacy of government. This makes you copy and past of the definition of legitimate irrelevant as we are discussing if it is legally and/or morally binding (if it has been accepted or not)”

                      Nope. You, once again, are the only one fixated on the narrow criteria of “legally and/or morally binding”.

                      Nope that is how SCT is DEFINED it is to be accepted.

                      “If somebody does not accept the social contract, then they challenge the government or leave.”

                      Objection 2 shows that to be an non-starter. Also, until you have a justification for the government, you can’t make that the alternatives so claiming this is a circular argument (You are trying to justify the SCT as being binding and requiring those who disagree to leave presupposes it is justified)

                      http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                      ” Otherwise they implicitly accept some imposition upon themselves in exchange for the wider benefits of living in a society with an effective government.”

                      Objection 4 destroys this.

                      “There’s no legal or moral justification, it’s simply a description of how governments form and gain legitimacy and a rational justification”

                      Which by definition means it as either legal or moral justification!!! If it has neither then ignoring it is fine and NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      “as to why that government is better than the alternatives facing that society.”

                      It does no such thing; tell me how it proves this system better than any other?

                      “If somebody does not accept it then the government has no legitimacy to govern that person”

                      “If that person wishes to enjoy the benefits of remaining in that society, then that person challenges the government to a certain level then accepts the remaining imposition. The concept of a person living within a society while not being bound by the rules of that society is pretty farcical: to use your trolleyed website analogy, the mafiosi wihtin a society might refuse to accept the gorvernment of that society, so would you then argue that the government has no legitimacy to imprison them for racketeering or murder?”

                      HAHAHA do you really think that no system at all is the alternative? And you claim to know what I propose? Let me give you a clue, those things violate human rights, by doing so the perpetrators lose RATIONAL consideration of their rights.

                      “Hell, by your logic anyone who breaks a law refuses to accept the legitimacy of that law,”

                      This does not logically follow and is what we call a straw man argument. I am asking what justifies the government as it is and the answer given was SCT. Nobody asked what my system is or how it is justified but I can tell you SCT does not enter into it only reason and reality.

                      ” so therefore cannot be legally or morally sanctioned for breaking that law.”

                      Yes they can as they break the rationally defined human rights of others.

                      “Try that as a defense when you’re finally arrested for goatfucking.”

                      Ok thats it! I have tried to be nice but you are all arrogant mindless retards incapable of thinking so go Fuck yourself. I have proven you wrong deal with it

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 May 2015 at 8:34 pm

                      🙄

                      Go Galt, dullard. No-one will notice.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 May 2015 at 10:05 pm

                      [cut stuart making up his own definitions again]

                      “If somebody does not accept the social contract, then they challenge the government or leave.”

                      Objection 2 shows that to be an non-starter.

                      objection two: Ok, citizens obviously don’t choose their states. But they implicitly consent to a social contract by not leaving.
                      Trolleyproblem responses:
                      Immigration is prohibitively expensive for the majority of human beings on the planet. But going bush is free.
                      Even if immigration were affordable, most human beings have unchosen, intimate, connections to people and groups within their states, which make it unreasonable to demand that they leave. If the only way for you to signal disagreement with a contract that I’m foisting on you is for you to promise never to see your mother again, it’s clearly not reasonable to take your silence as an indication of agreement.
                      People do it all the time, leaving families and social connections to shift across the planet. If part of your family wants to live in one society and you wish to live in another, you have a choice to make.
                      Where would citizens leave to?
                      Fuck, go bush in Fiordland or live on a yacht in the middle of an ocean, or abandoned observation platforms. It’s up to you.

                      Also, until you have a justification for the government, you can’t make that the alternatives so claiming this is a circular argument (You are trying to justify the SCT as being binding and requiring those who disagree to leave presupposes it is justified)

                      Social contract theory describes the mechanisms by which social contracts are made in order to justify government. Different subjects, therefore not circular, like the Theory of Evolution not being circular even though it was based on examples of gradual hereditary mutations.

                      ” Otherwise they implicitly accept some imposition upon themselves in exchange for the wider benefits of living in a society with an effective government.”

                      Objection 4 destroys this.

                      Lets see:
                      So maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)?
                      There are many government services which I cannot opt out of. […]
                      You can leave.
                      If the state takes my resources by force (through taxation), and then converts those into services, I may have to consume those services. That doesn’t imply that I consented to any wider set of rules that the state dreamt up!
                      You can leave.
                      Since the state generally exercises a monopoly on the use of violence, it drives other providers out of business, forcing me to consume its services. I have to rely on the state police, because the state takes steps to make sure that their police force is the only one. A monopoly that systematically destroys all its competitors does not thereby have consenting customers.
                      “Generally” puts the lie to that bullshit, just like private security services do. But even if it were true, you could leave.

                      Yes, society is a package – you can’t choose which rules you will obey. But then when I look at a software EULA, I can’t pick and choose which section I will agree with. I can take it, or leave it. That doesn’t “destroy” SCT.

                      “There’s no legal or moral justification, it’s simply a description of how governments form and gain legitimacy and a rational justification”

                      Which by definition means it as either legal or moral justification!!! If it has neither then ignoring it is fine and NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      there you go making up definitions again

                      “as to why that government is better than the alternatives facing that society.”

                      It does no such thing; tell me how it proves this system better than any other?

                      Because that’s the government that they society chose.

                      “If that person wishes to enjoy the benefits of remaining in that society, then that person challenges the government to a certain level then accepts the remaining imposition. The concept of a person living within a society while not being bound by the rules of that society is pretty farcical: to use your trolleyed website analogy, the mafiosi wihtin a society might refuse to accept the gorvernment of that society, so would you then argue that the government has no legitimacy to imprison them for racketeering or murder?”

                      HAHAHA do you really think that no system at all is the alternative? And you claim to know what I propose? Let me give you a clue, those things violate human rights, by doing so the perpetrators lose RATIONAL consideration of their rights.

                      There you go inventing definitions again.
                      As Tracey points out, you don’t know what human rights are.

                      “Hell, by your logic anyone who breaks a law refuses to accept the legitimacy of that law,”

                      This does not logically follow and is what we call a straw man argument. I am asking what justifies the government as it is and the answer given was SCT. Nobody asked what my system is or how it is justified but I can tell you SCT does not enter into it only reason and reality.

                      You want to pick and choose which social rules you consent to.
                      And nobody cares what your system of government is because it’s irrelevant to SCT.

                      ” so therefore cannot be legally or morally sanctioned for breaking that law.”

                      Yes they can as they break the rationally defined human rights of others.

                      Yeah, nah.You argue with your own statements, why would you know what “rational” even is.

                      “Try that as a defense when you’re finally arrested for goatfucking.”

                      Ok thats it! I have tried to be nice but you are all arrogant mindless retards incapable of thinking so go Fuck yourself. I have proven you wrong deal with it

                      An alternative explanation is that, like most fresher bcoms, we understand exactly what you’re saying and you’re an idiot.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      15 May 2015 at 7:20 pm

                      “[cut stuart making up his own definitions again]”

                      Really what definition did I make up? Come on provide the smoking gun!

                      “If somebody does not accept the social contract, then they challenge the government or leave.”
                      Objection 2 shows that to be an non-starter.”

                      objection two: Ok, citizens obviously don’t choose their states. But they implicitly consent to a social contract by not leaving.
                      Trolleyproblem responses:
                      Immigration is prohibitively expensive for the majority of human beings on the planet.
                      But going bush is free”

                      Read on

                      “Even if immigration were affordable, most human beings have unchosen, intimate, connections to people and groups within their states, which make it unreasonable to demand that they leave. If the only way for you to signal disagreement with a contract that I’m foisting on you is for you to promise never to see your mother again, it’s clearly not reasonable to take your silence as an indication of agreement.
                      People do it all the time, leaving families and social connections to shift across the planet.”

                      And you fail to see the point. The point is that there is no justifiable reason to make this a compulsion for someone! The fact that some people choose to do so is irrelevant!!!! The point is can making those the alternatives be justified? You have not shown that it is.

                      “If part of your family wants to live in one society and you wish to live in another, you have a choice to make.”

                      You have failed to comprehend what a rebuttal of an objection is. You need to prove WHY that should be the choice not that some people have made a similar one.

                      “Where would citizens leave to?
                      Fuck, go bush”

                      Again why should that be the option?

                      “in Fiordland or live on a yacht in the middle of an ocean, or abandoned observation platforms. It’s up to you.”

                      Again why should that be the option?

                      “Also, until you have a justification for the government, you can’t make that the alternatives so claiming this is a circular argument (You are trying to justify the SCT as being binding and requiring those who disagree to leave presupposes it is justified)
                      Social contract theory describes the mechanisms by which social contracts are made in order to justify government.”

                      WTF?!?!?!?! Do you really think SCT describes reality in the same way a physics attempts to?
                      SCT IT IS A THEORY OF HOW IT IS GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED!!!!!!!!!! That is the ENTIRE point of objection 1. If you really think that then all you need to do is disprove objection 1. with your belief in the scripture that is SCT.

                      “Different subjects, therefore not circular,”

                      Nope not when you understand that SCT needs to be justified and not simply assumed as you are doing.

                      “like the Theory of Evolution not being circular even though it was based on examples of gradual hereditary mutations.”

                      Do I really have to explain the scientific method to you? I mean really? Because SCT is nothing like a hypothesis tested through empirical inquiry. To even try to argue that analogy is just dumbfounding I think I need to go have a shower… I feel dirty from having read that.

                      ” Otherwise they implicitly accept some imposition upon themselves in exchange for the wider benefits of living in a society with an effective government.”
                      Objection 4 destroys this.”
                      Lets see:
                      So maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)?
                      There are many government services which I cannot opt out of.” […]
                      You can leave.”

                      Objection 2 still stands and that even stands after you we assume SCT holds!

                      “If the state takes my resources by force (through taxation), and then converts those into services, I may have to consume those services. That doesn’t imply that I consented to any wider set of rules that the state dreamt up!
                      You can leave.”

                      Objection 2.

                      “Since the state generally exercises a monopoly on the use of violence, it drives other providers out of business, forcing me to consume its services. I have to rely on the state police, because the state takes steps to make sure that their police force is the only one. A monopoly that systematically destroys all its competitors does not thereby have consenting customers.
                      “Generally” puts the lie to that bullshit, just like private security services do. But even if it were true, you could leave.”

                      So the private security can go against the government when the government is wrong? A private security company can form without any government oversight and permission?

                      “Yes, society is a package – you can’t choose which rules you will obey.”

                      So the Jews got what they deserved? Nice argument.

                      “But then when I look at a software EULA, I can’t pick and choose which section I will agree with. I can take it, or leave it. That doesn’t “destroy” SCT.”

                      What you are putting forth is not the basis of the objection. The objection is showing that use of government provided goods and services does not constitute consent of ALL OF GOVERNMENT! To explain this so you can understand.

                      Going to the police does not constitute consent of Social Welfare or capital punishment etc. It can only be shown to be acceptance of the police in their function for which you went to them for.

                      “There’s no legal or moral justification, it’s simply a description of how governments form and gain legitimacy and a rational justification”
                      Which by definition means it as either legal or moral justification!!! If it has neither then ignoring it is fine and NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                      there you go making up definitions again”

                      Nope that is what the words mean. No legal basis then can not be enforced legally, no moral basis then can not be enforced as a result of moral obligations. So if it is neither than saying ‘accept or leave’ is actually saying ‘accept or ignore entirely as we have no justification to do anything about it’.

                      “as to why that government is better than the alternatives facing that society.”
                      It does no such thing; tell me how it proves this system better than any other?
                      Because that’s the government that they society chose.”

                      Ohh my god! Are you acting stupid on purpose? Because that is the point of this whole discussion, you are telling me it has been chosen and I am asking how has it been chosen. You have said it is not explicit and have claimed tacit/implicit acceptance and I have given the objections that prove the methods of tacit/implicit acceptance are logically invalid.

                      “If that person wishes to enjoy the benefits of remaining in that society, then that person challenges the government to a certain level then accepts the remaining imposition. The concept of a person living within a society while not being bound by the rules of that society is pretty farcical: to use your trolleyed website analogy, the mafiosi wihtin a society might refuse to accept the gorvernment of that society, so would you then argue that the government has no legitimacy to imprison them for racketeering or murder?”
                      HAHAHA do you really think that no system at all is the alternative? And you claim to know what I propose? Let me give you a clue, those things violate human rights, by doing so the perpetrators lose RATIONAL consideration of their rights.
                      There you go inventing definitions again.”

                      Nope; that is the definition of rational human rights.

                      “As Tracey points out, you don’t know what human rights are.”

                      Must have missed that, can you please point this out?

                      “Hell, by your logic anyone who breaks a law refuses to accept the legitimacy of that law,”
                      This does not logically follow and is what we call a straw man argument. I am asking what justifies the government as it is and the answer given was SCT. Nobody asked what my system is or how it is justified but I can tell you SCT does not enter into it only reason and reality.
                      You want to pick and choose which social rules you consent to.”

                      No I want you to justify ‘your’ system of government. If you can not do that than everything it is goes out the window and we need to find a different system that is justifiable. What the hell did you think this discussion was about?

                      “And nobody cares what your system of government is because it’s irrelevant to SCT.”

                      Yes but then you can’t support SCT so what does that matter?

                      ” so therefore cannot be legally or morally sanctioned for breaking that law.”
                      Yes they can as they break the rationally defined human rights of others.
                      Yeah, nah.You argue with your own statements, why would you know what “rational” even is.”

                      And you lie as shown in the sentence above.

                      “Try that as a defense when you’re finally arrested for goatfucking.”
                      Ok thats it! I have tried to be nice but you are all arrogant mindless retards incapable of thinking so go Fuck yourself. I have proven you wrong deal with it
                      An alternative explanation is that, like most fresher bcoms, we understand exactly what you’re saying and you’re an idiot.”

                      Then how did you miss the point of the discussion? How did you misds the fact you assumed SCT is vaild? How did you miss the point of the objections to SCT?

                      I guess the answer there could be stupidity and pigheadedness but I think it is more to do with the fact you don’t care if you are unjustified you only care that the world continues to entrench your privilege.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 May 2015 at 6:29 am

                      You really can’t grasp the goatfucker gambit, eh Stuey. The fact that it exactly copies your feeble debating “style” just sailed right over your head.

                      You’re a figure of fun, Stuart. The butt of the joke.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      16 May 2015 at 2:51 pm

                      “You really can’t grasp the goatfucker gambit, eh Stuey. The fact that it exactly copies your feeble debating “style” just sailed right over your head.”

                      Only a retard could think that, I have logically and rationally proven you and your kind wrong and every turn. I have given the objections to ALL forms of acceptance of SC except explicit acceptance; which you claim is not the form the people have given; this means SC is meaningless and you have lost any argument that relies upon it. This is not just me ‘claiming victory’ as you like to call it; it is the fact of a discussion where one side gives arguments and the other does not.

                      “You’re a figure of fun, Stuart. The butt of the joke.”

                      Says the guy who can’t even understand the theory he claims as support for his views.

      • Tracey 2.2.2
        7 May 2015 at 8:02 am

        “free will, free enterprise and the creation of wealth.”

        fascinating. one relates to human essence and two to the accumulation of money. Your premise appears to be based on the notion that accumulation of lots of money and more money is beneficially in and of itself as opposed to a construct some have chosen to live by no matter the real or perceived benefit.

  3. Brendan 3
    24 April 2015 at 7:06 pm

    What Tobby Morris has failed to point, and I think he should amend this, is the foreigners moving at the top floor and evicting those on the floors below them forcing them to move further down the building. I’m sure National’s working class voters would be somewhat OK with foreigner’s moving in at the lower floors and working their way up (and I’m sure many Labour voters would agree). But surely when those National voters are slowly moving down the building, no matter how hard they are working, and they work hard, they would start to see the building plan for what it is. Oh that’s right, they didn’t step outside to see it.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 3.1
      24 April 2015 at 9:48 pm

      Inequality in New Zealand is due to a hell of a lot more than “evil foreigners stealing our houses”. This comment is just weird.

      • Bill 3.1.1
        24 April 2015 at 10:16 pm

        “This comment is just weird.”

        Well, if a 10%-er Northern American can move to NZ and be of the NZ 1%…sure, it can knock a 1%er down into the hoi-polloi of the 10% and a 10%er to a 40%er and so on.

        Nothing to do with the bigger picture of inequality for sure, where (why do so many people fall for this?) you simply can’t ‘work your way up’, as Brendon imagines, because well…only 1% of a population can be of the richest 1%…

      • Brendan 3.1.2
        24 April 2015 at 10:17 pm

        Okay maybe in hindsight it sounds Xenophobic but I certainly didn’t mean it that way, or in an anti-immigrant way. I meant it in the loose regulation specifically regarding foreign property speculation in contrast to other OECD countries. Also, I don’t see it as weird. I didn’t say, or imply, evil foreigners any more than Morris says “evil rich”. I’m not jumping on the New Zealand First anti-immigrant bus, I’m just pointing out inequality is influenced by foreign interests.

        • Murray Rawshark 3.1.2.1
          25 April 2015 at 3:57 pm

          It is an influence, and it is allowed by the laws made by the representatives we vote in. It’s not the whole of the problem by any means, but it is certainly one of the things that needs changing.

  4. Pinot Reserve 4
    24 April 2015 at 10:12 pm

    This story alarmed me so I went to inequality.org.nz and filled in the “where do you stand” calculator. When I saw I am one place below the top 10% and that I am $488 worse off than if all incomes had grown evenly I decided there is no justice in this world for working hard at school, furthering my education at Polytechnic, getting a good job and working hard to be successful. In hindsight I would be better sitting on my arse and letting the state take care of me.

    • Bill 4.1
      24 April 2015 at 10:21 pm

      And I guess the illustration becomes clearer when I, third bottom decile, am over $3300 per year worse off.

    • BassGuy 4.2
      25 April 2015 at 3:38 pm

      This story alarmed me so I went to inequality.org.nz and filled in the “where do you stand” calculator. There I saw I am fourth place from the bottom and that I am $4982 worse off than if all incomes had grown evenly.

      I decided there is no justice in this world for working very, very hard at school, furthering my education at University, then working really hard outside of it, and then being discriminated against on the basis of a disability.

      In hindsight, I would have been better off not bothering to get my degree or even try to better myself because not only have there been no rewards for my hard work, there are no potential rewards for me.

      Hard work doesn’t play as much of a part in “your” success as you think it does. My degree? According to the specialists, I should not have been able to get that, so if you want to bitch about your entitlements because of your hard work, I suggest that as your starting point.

    • Murray Rawshark 4.3
      25 April 2015 at 4:55 pm

      I am in the top 30% and I’m really glad the state does not pretend to take care of me. I did no work at school, eventually got a PhD, got a good job and work hard, mostly sitting down. In professional terms as a researcher, I am in the international top 5% in my profession. I’m happy with my life, but I try to change things for those in the bottom 50%. I would regard doing that as success.

      What the hell is your problem? If you define yourself by what you earn, I feel sorry for you.

      • Tracey 4.3.1
        7 May 2015 at 8:08 am

        Thanks for putting what I have been thinking.

        I graduated university and practiced in a high paying profession but left because a daily focus on money (recording every 6 minutes for billing purposes), budgets and commercial financial squabbles and games was not how I wanted to contribute during my life.

        My income fluctuates but am currently on a one-year fixed contract for about 70k.

        I work to make a difference through the people I take into my home, the people I work with and those I serve (through my job).

        Stuart wrote

        “free will, free enterprise and the creation of wealth”

        two are about the pursuit of money… according to a model he suggest is natural… when it is imposed either covertly or overtly.

        • Stuart Hawkins 4.3.1.1
          7 May 2015 at 7:41 pm

          “Thanks for putting what I have been thinking.

          I graduated university and practiced in a high paying profession but left because a daily focus on money (recording every 6 minutes for billing purposes), budgets and commercial financial squabbles and games was not how I wanted to contribute during my life.

          My income fluctuates but am currently on a one-year fixed contract for about 70k.

          I work to make a difference through the people I take into my home, the people I work with and those I serve (through my job).

          Stuart wrote

          “free will, free enterprise and the creation of wealth”

          two are about the pursuit of money… according to a model he suggest is natural… when it is imposed either covertly or overtly.”

          What? Are you talking about me? Because I never said that at all.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1.1
            7 May 2015 at 10:11 pm

            Faith-based drivel often impedes ones competence in legal circles. You aren’t the first Libertarian to discover that, nor will you be the last.

            • Stuart Hawkins 4.3.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 4:39 pm

              “Faith-based drivel often impedes ones competence in legal circles.”

              To use the idiom (and tailor it to the situation) That is the black hole calling the radiant white hole black.

              “You aren’t the first Libertarian to discover that, nor will you be the last.”

              I’m not the one that has lied and failed to provide any substantiation for their beliefs and statements. This is shown in this thread (copied below)

              ——————————————————————————————————–

              ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
              If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
              You
              The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
              Me
              You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
              That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
              You
              “Debunked” by whom?
              In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                9 May 2015 at 4:46 pm

                🙄

                Cherry picking a few comments is lying by omission, Stuey. Hoist up your own flagpole, banality boy.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  9 May 2015 at 8:51 pm

                  “Cherry picking a few comments is lying by omission, Stuey. Hoist up your own flagpole, banality boy.”

                  Cherry picking? It is the direct chain of communication dating from your claims of a ‘false narrative’ and attempts to ‘re-define’ back to the introduction of the topic. By definition there can be no ‘Cherry picking’ as that constitutes the entirety of the evidence but hey if you want to prove me wrong all you need to do is copy and paste…

                  Here is another of those Wikipipedia pages you so love on ‘Cherry picking’

                  Edit: Sorry link didn’t work for some reason but here it is this time. Must have ctrl c failed it

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    9 May 2015 at 9:55 pm

                    The entirety Stuey? Sorry, I was wrong: you aren’t cherry-picking, you’re simply inattentive.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:18 pm

                      THEN PASTE IT IN!! Oh and don’t paste in comments made days after the thread because I noticed it the last time you did it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:37 pm

                      What. paste the entirety of my comments on this page into one comment? Nah, how about you just read them. It’s a skill.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      10 May 2015 at 7:27 am

                      “The entirety Stuey? Sorry, I was wrong: you aren’t cherry-picking, you’re simply inattentive.”

                      We have already established that your claim of ‘customary’ observation would require prescience not attention so drop the lies and start being honest for a change.

    • ropata 4.4
      30 April 2015 at 2:01 am

      If you’re one place below the top 10% that’s probably about 5 times the unemployment benefit so good luck with your new life plan. Prepare for your self esteem to crash when your case manager treats you like crap and you have to jump through a dozen hoops to pay the rent and put food on the table. Get ready for your world to shrink, socially economically and for opportunities to pass you by.

  5. Reddelusion 5
    24 April 2015 at 10:34 pm

    Do something about it bill, bitching whining and envy won’t help. Get rid of the woe is me, I am a victim it’s not my fault attitude, believe me you will find it liberating

    • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1
      24 April 2015 at 10:42 pm

      *David Attenborough voice*

      Here, the rightwing spinner attempts to derail the conversation by ignoring the serious, institutional, systemic issues which create inequality across the board. The spinner tries to promote the idea that any individual could be part of the top 1% if only they worked hard enough. This allows the spinner to sneer at people who are low-paid or unemployed instead of feeling basic human compassion.

      The behaviour is known as “bootstrapping” due to the dark lines on the rightwing spinner’s legs, which resemble bootlaces.

    • Bill 5.2
      24 April 2015 at 11:26 pm

      Stating a factual conclusion from a questionnaire is bitching, whining, envious and indicative of a ‘woe is me’ attitude?

      Nah.

      I just need access to something better then these damned shonky NZ safety matches 😉 See, the way it is, is this. I’ve no interest in catching stairs, escalators or lifts to those ‘higher’ floors.

      • weka 5.2.1
        25 April 2015 at 10:02 am

        lolz.

        RD also neglects the fact that it’s all the people on the bottom floor that do the critical maintenance on the highrise. If they all left the building, it would eventually fall over.

  6. SMILIN 6
    24 April 2015 at 11:11 pm

    The growth between the rich and poor in NZ began back in the mid sixties what we see now is the result of the time passed and it will continue until those on benefits will disappear and the imported rich and descendants of the now rich will replace the worthless and that will be NZ
    Key is the example and the driver of ridding the poor from society thru economic genocide get use to it a hundred years ago they used war now its the money bombs and the selling of the nations sovereignty and indigenous rights of the non compliant

  7. Reddelusion 7
    25 April 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Blah blah right winger, blah blah institutional, blah blah low paid blah bah, spare us please

    Silly contructs that’s all they are to self justify your silly world view plus keep the envy industry going ( there’s and institutiion if you want one holding people back) in all its forms propagating this rubbish

    Who siad you need to be in the 1pc, by definition only 1pc can be in the 1pc unless we adopt your social utopia where every one is equally poor and with no incentive to do anything about it

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      25 April 2015 at 1:32 pm

      You’re the only person who said everyone has to be equally poor. Back on Earth, in NZ, per-capita GDP has always been higher under Labour governments.

      Perhaps you can try arguing with reality. Or will you find some more fatuous dribble to waste your time?

      • ropata 7.1.1
        25 April 2015 at 3:20 pm

        Facts are the enemy of our deluded friend. Ignorance and bigotry with a dash of sociopath allow him to hate the poor and worship the rich with such enthusiasm. My guess is RD is 24 or younger with no awareness of NZ before rogernomics destroyed the social contract

        • BassGuy 7.1.1.1
          25 April 2015 at 3:40 pm

          Just remember, it’s apparently all the deluded left wing extremists that have made him like this. Funny, I always thought ring whingers were about personal responsibility yet here he is blaming others…

        • Stuart Hawkins 7.1.1.2
          3 May 2015 at 6:36 am

          “Facts are the enemy of our deluded friend.”

          Are you talking to yourself? You really shouldn’t do that it will give people the wrong idea…

          Sorry that was unfair but it was too well set up to leave without saying

          “Ignorance and bigotry ”

          I take that back you do need some self awareness and manners being derogatory and rude to you is completely fair game.
          Now tell me where the ignorance comes in and also the bigotry.

          “allow him to hate the poor and worship the rich with such enthusiasm”

          Wow missed him doing that; must have been in a different post…

          “My guess is RD is 24 or younger with no awareness of NZ before rogernomics destroyed the social contract

          No such thing as a social contract, never was.
          Oh and I am pushing 40.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.2.1
            3 May 2015 at 7:46 am

            The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.

            • Stuart Hawkins 7.1.1.2.1.1
              3 May 2015 at 10:34 am

              Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.

              If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                3 May 2015 at 10:43 am

                The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  3 May 2015 at 3:23 pm

                  You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?

                  That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    3 May 2015 at 3:44 pm

                    “Debunked” by whom?

                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 5:04 pm

                      You ask “Debunked” by whom? ”

                      Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
                      I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is bunk.

                      “In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have”

                      Wow so you already admit you can’t win this argument by going straight to insults. I can do that too – You are self centered egotistical self serving pseudo- moral totalitarian with about as much reason and forethought as a potato. Now if you are finished wasting time and showing you can’t argue with me can we move on or do you think you will give it a go.

                      ” when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue?”

                      When the parameters were defined and the questions answered; which I should point out had nothing to do with social contracts.

                      “You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.”

                      Well you might want to come up with something else because there is no such thing outside of your imagination.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2015 at 5:15 pm

                      Get a clue: this isn’t about you nor your agreement. The phenomenon of mass acceptance of governance is ubiquitous. You can deny participation as much as you like, and yet you pay your taxes.

                      You pay tax, you get governance ( the rule of law, etc.) in return: the social contract.

                      Call it what you like.

                    • Macro …
                      3 May 2015 at 5:21 pm

                      Sorry Stuart – but even at 40 you are far to young to understand or have experienced what the social contract was. That was destroyed in the late 70’s early 80’s by Thacher in the UK, Regan in the States, and Douglas here. Thacher is infamous for her “There is no such thing as Society”. The 8 hour day, the 40 hour week, the caring for all from birth to death, free health care, proper housing for all. All these concepts were in existence in the early 70’s, but were swept by the board in the interests of “user pays”. The social contract as it was then was destroyed. People who lived during the 50’s and 60’s and before know what it was. Most people today have no idea.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2015 at 5:24 pm

                      Macro, while I agree that these aims are laudable, and do-able, and our birthright – yes, even Stuart’s – that is not what the social contract means. The Wikipedia article is a good start,

                    • Macro …
                      3 May 2015 at 5:57 pm

                      But in practical terms, that is exactly what it is! We make a contract with Government, pay our taxes, and gain the protection of the state. With “user pays” government gives up its role, and the individual is left to fend for themselves.
                      And yes I have read Locke and Hobbs.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 8:57 pm

                      For some reason i can’t reply to this little gem here so I hope you get this anyway.

                      “Get a clue: this isn’t about you nor your agreement.”

                      Yes it is! That is exactly the point! You claim a social contract but NOBODY AGREED TO ANYTHING THEREFORE NO CONTRACT!

                      “The phenomenon of mass acceptance of governance is ubiquitous.”

                      This statement is really not relevant at all.

                      “You can deny participation as much as you like, and yet you pay your taxes.”

                      Just as I would pay any other mugger with a guns and a group of thugs to enforce their rule. This does not make what they do right.

                      “You pay tax, you get governance ( the rule of law, etc.) in return: the social contract.”

                      That is not even an argument; I pay taxes because I am forced to and in so doing i accept that I should pay taxes and be ruled? That is a circular argument and you are significantly out of youir league

                      “Call it what you like.”

                      I call it the abuse of my human rights and you have done nothing to even argue it isn’t at all.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 9:12 pm

                      MACRO please look as I can not reply to your messages either so both are here… (edit: sorry only one as I needed to do something other one in different post)

                      “Sorry Stuart – but even at 40 you are far to young to understand or have experienced what the social contract was.”

                      Don’t need to be as there never was one as proven by modern philosophy and the fact that nobody actually agreed in any actual explicit way. No explicit agreement therefore no contract. Please try again using words that do not expressly prohibit the meaning you are trying to give then.

                      “That was destroyed in the late 70’s early 80’s by Thacher in the UK, Regan in the States, and Douglas here.”

                      Can’t destroy that which never existed.

                      “Thacher is infamous for her “There is no such thing as Society”.”

                      Quite right, what you call a society is actually a collection of individuals.

                      “The 8 hour day, the 40 hour week,”

                      Well that is should be up to your negotiation not to the imposition of jack booted thugs.

                      “the caring for all from birth to death,”

                      You mean stealing from people to buy votes? not really that defensible.

                      “free health care,”

                      Health care is not free; somebody has to provide the equipment, the consumables and the labor.

                      “proper housing for all.”

                      That is a concern for the individual not for any aggregation that does not voluntarily choose to do so.

                      “All these concepts were in existence in the early 70’s,”

                      And they are, to put none too fine a point on it, evil wrapped up in good intentions. Caring for others is by definition supererogatory and as such forcing such observance is by definition an evil.

                      “but were swept by the board in the interests of “user pays”.”

                      Which is respecting everyone’s right to choose and make decisions for their own lives.

                      “The social contract as it was then was destroyed.”

                      You can not destroy something that never existed.

                      “People who lived during the 50’s and 60’s and before know what it was. Most people today have no idea.”

                      I don’t need to live in communism to know what is is and that it is evil. I don’t even need to experience evil to know what evil is so this line of argument is utterly pointless Macro so please try and actually answer one of my points. it would be nice if even one of you people actually attempted to do that.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 9:18 pm

                      MACRO your second post.

                      “But in practical terms, that is exactly what it is! We make a contract with Government,”

                      Really I must have slept through that as i didn’t get one

                      “pay our taxes,”

                      Under threat of violence, sanctions, and intimidation so not really indicative of anything there.

                      “and gain the protection of the state.”

                      And who protects us from the state? Your argument can be used to justify great evils; slavery for example, or genocide or any persecution at all.

                      “With “user pays” government gives up its role, and the individual is left to fend for themselves.”

                      Exactly the point we are left to actually make our own decisions and reap the benefits/penalties of our actions.

                      “And yes I have read Locke and Hobbs.”

                      Who hasn’t…

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 9:25 pm

                      “Macro, while I agree that these aims are laudable,”

                      The enslaving of all for the goals of the majority is not laudable; it is evil.

                      “and do-able,”

                      Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. I can easily kill several people but I most certainly should not kill any of them. Because you can easily enslave the population to the will of some group does note mean that they should be so enslaved.

                      “and our birthright”

                      Big claim there; lets see if you can back it up with reasons, but then again why start now.

                      “– yes, even Stuart’s – that is not what the social contract means.”

                      No you are right, the social contracts means whatever you want because there is not actual contract.

                      “The Wikipedia article is a good start,”

                      No really it isn’t; as I pointed out social contracts are bunk and you couldn’t even argue against my simple example so you just fail.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2015 at 9:25 pm

                      Yep, just as I figured: another privileged ingrate whining about taxation.

                      Edit, and no, not contracts, plural: you don’t get to redefine terms and pretend your argument is relevant. Not to mention that it isn’t even your argument, which makes you a parrot as well as an ingrate.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      3 May 2015 at 10:09 pm

                      One anonymous Bloke please read this

                      “Yep, just as I figured: another privileged ingrate whining about taxation.”

                      Then justify taxation; come on do something. I have crushed every argument you have made and all you do is shout ‘you wrote contracts therefore you are wrong’ or scream ‘huh you don’t like being taxed therefore your arguments are invalid’. You have yet to make any argument against anything I write, even after i call you out on it. All you are doing is proving you are an ignorant and petty minded individual that holds their ignorance as their most precious possession.

                      “Edit, and no, not contracts, plural: you don’t get to redefine terms and pretend your argument is relevant.”

                      I have another post where I address the stupidity of that statement (in short I show it is not redefining but strengthening of my statement as it shows there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SOCIAL CONTRACTS not just an argument against this specific social contract)

                      “Not to mention that it isn’t even your argument,”

                      Yes it is, I just made it and am defending it so yes it is my argument. If you think otherwise how about some proof or evidence at least? I think it would make a nice change for you.

                      “which makes you a parrot as well as an ingrate.”

                      Says the person whose only attempt at substantiation is a Wikipedia quote…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2015 at 10:19 pm

                      You really don’t get it do you? Mass tolerance of government is ubiquitous, therefore there is a social contract.

                      If they’re your arguments (which they aren’t) how come so many people have dribbled them before you?

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 7.2
      25 April 2015 at 3:29 pm

      Seriously deluded are those who think that everyone has the same ability, the same opportunity, the same luck and the same desire to measure their success by wealth.

      As someone who earns well above the average wage I understand how blessed I am and understand that its not all due to my own effort.

      There’s a significant amount of genetic luck involved – my brain is wired to connect particular things in particular ways and that skill has proven very useful to people over the years.

      I was fortunate to be born into a family who had two working parents at a time it wasn’t the norm, and fortunate to have teachers who saw some potential and arranged scholarships for me to go to boarding school.

      I was fortunate in having a supportive wife who allowed me to leave home for long periods of time to further my career and my skills while she oft raised the kids by herself.

      I was fortunate not to have suffered any serious illness or damage from risky things I did as a teenager and as a young adult.

      I was fortunate to have strong unions and competent union delegates behind me as some of my employers didn’t like hearing contrary views and different opinions – in particular when standing up for others against bullying and sexual harassment and unfair treatment.

      I’m fortunate today to have access to an amazing thing called the internet which has greatly enhanced the ability to increase skills and knowledge without having to go into debt.

      I’m fortunate to not be intrinsically driven by money so I have been free to pursue other interests and to help and support many others.

      In amongst all that and many other things has also been some hard work.

      Hard-work is far from what it takes to make it in this world. I’ve worked far harder in forestry for less money for instance than I do now.

      Giving people opportunities as a society will create more wealth than creating opportunities through purely the dint of individual circumstance.

      Creating those opportunities means ensuring as a society that children are well housed fed and educated. That people have the opportunity to reach their potential and that if their potential is not the same as yours and mine that they can still live and be treated with dignity. That those that get elected to power are those who care and take responsibility to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are looked after – not just the most selfish or the most powerful.

      The notion that people like reddelusion have that people like me are envious of the 1% is a simple nonsense. The threat their accumulation of wealth does to the economy – it’s much better to have money circulating, and the bigger threat that their “look at me I’m shit hot and you can be too if you only pull your finger out of your backside” attitude towards society is pernicious and leads us slowly to societal breakdown.

      Once you get society to think you should keep the wealth for yourself, you slide into keeping the education for yourself, the housing for yourself, the distribution of help for yourself (charity versus universal non-moralistic welfare), art and music and literature for yourself, and so on.

      Envious is not a synonym for disdain.

      Thinking we’re envious of you however I have no doubt is much more pleasant in your own head rather than having to face the reality that in truth we just think you’re selfish uncaring arseholes.

      Next time you you want to throw the envious tag on someone like me just replace it with “selfish uncaring arsehole”. It mightn’t make you feel any better but at least it’ll be more accurate.

      • ropata 7.2.1
        26 April 2015 at 8:36 am

        +1 I think a lot of commenters on here are in a similar position. It takes a certain amount of education and privilege to even participate in online discussions.

        I worked 3 times as hard in a steel factory for quarter the money, as I now earn in the IT biz. I came from South Auckland, now I live on the North Shore.

        No jealousy here either, just a concern about the future of NZ when 10% of people take all the wealth, and most of NZ lives from week to week, yet they are voiceless and certainly not represented by the bankster gnat party.

        That is not the country I grew up in.

        • Stuart Hawkins 7.2.1.1
          3 May 2015 at 10:20 pm

          “I don’t like being stolen from either”

          Good so you accept tax is theft.

          “and it’s pretty disgusting that the top few % of NZ landed gentry are amassing >100K/year in untaxed capital gains,”

          How is that theft? You do not own that capital and have no right to any part of its value.

          “in collusion with the government and loanshark banksters.”

          That is a claim that needs support; in other words how are they colluding?

          “It’s amazing that some people build a pile of money by working the system or skimming off others,”

          You mean the people on benefits? I thought you liked them.

          “and then justify it to themselves as their own hard earned property.”

          Show me how they do this, you claiming it is so is just wind.

          “It’s repulsive that some people use the advantages of living in a peaceful country like NZ with one of the world’s most business friendly policies, low corruption, modern infrastructure, good education, and yet claim they did it all themselves and don’t want to give back a cent.”

          Well I think the point there is that the government has no right to create laws to interfere in voluntary interaction and as such paying them to not do so is just weird. The only justification this argument can give is justification for a form of police or defense force but I can see that is not what you intend it to do.

          “I guess that’s how the aristocracy justifies their decadent parasitic existence.”

          Again I ask how are they parasites? But then again you haven’t answered the other two times I asked so why would I think you cared about actually trying to make your argument anything more than unsubstantiated ramblings.

          “inequality.org.nz”

          Product placement. Ding.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1
            3 May 2015 at 10:38 pm

            Go Galt. No-one will notice.

            • Stuart Hawkins 7.2.1.1.1.1
              4 May 2015 at 6:30 am

              One Anonymous Bloke you need to answer my questions, you need to support your arguments with reasons and fact until you do you will be nothing but a left wing troll.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 May 2015 at 7:08 am

                No, I don’t “need” to answer “your” questions: a simple google search for “debunking Randist idiocy” will demonstrate that “your” questions have been answered ad nauseam already, not to mention the fact that you plagiarised all your questions.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  4 May 2015 at 5:46 pm

                  “No, I don’t “need” to answer “your” questions:”

                  Yes you do if you want to maintain you are right.

                  “a simple google search for “debunking Randist idiocy” will demonstrate that “your” questions have been answered ad nauseam already, not to mention the fact that you plagiarised all your questions.”

                  I haven’t asked any such questions, I have only asked you to explain and support your statements. As asking you to explain and support your statements is not in any was ‘Randist’ I fail to see how this would help in any way. What it does do is prove you to be a liar and utterly defeated.

                  Besides replace Randist with ANY other philosophical system and you will get the same result, thousands of pages claiming to have done it.

                  All this proves is that you can not support or even argue for your own beliefs at all but thanks for the laughs

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 May 2015 at 7:16 am

                …the inadequate foundation of libertarian entitlement theory… 😈

          • ropata 7.2.1.1.2
            3 May 2015 at 10:44 pm

            Theft = misleading CPI/GDP figures and massive income jumps for the top few % while everyone else stays static or goes backwards.
            Theft = a sophisticated scam run by a Wall St banker posing as Prime Minister.
            Theft = The entitled elite helping themselves to an ever greater portion of NZ income while enjoying a regressive tax environment (thanks to team Keyster(tm) )
            Theft = Disaster capitalism in Christchurch
            Theft = Shonky deals with Oravida, SkyCity, Warner Bros, … without regard to ethics or due process

            If you want to get philosophical, nobody actually owns anything as our lives themselves are temporary. All the more reason to treat your neighbours decently while you’re here.

            It is actually common sense for elites to spread the wealth about, it tends to aid their survival.

            https://youtu.be/vQky0mTizgY?t=1m40s

            • Stuart Hawkins 7.2.1.1.2.1
              4 May 2015 at 6:40 am

              “Theft = misleading CPI/GDP figures and massive income jumps for the top few % while everyone else stays static or goes backwards.”

              What the hell is this? I have studied economics and I can tell you this sentence means nothing at all. What are you trying to say they have done there?

              “Theft = a sophisticated scam run by a Wall St banker posing as Prime Minister.”

              What scam is this? Come on back it up for once.

              “Theft = The entitled elite helping themselves to an ever greater portion of NZ income while enjoying a regressive tax environment (thanks to team Keyster(tm) )”

              Tax is theft and who cares what proportion people get so long as what they get is what they earn.

              “Theft = Disaster capitalism in Christchurch”

              HAHAHAHA Capitalism in Christchurch? HAHAHAHA government run? HAHAHA do you even know what Capitalism is? Clearly not as by DEFINITION it needs free markets not government control and intervention.

              “Theft = Shonky deals with Oravida, SkyCity, Warner Bros, … without regard to ethics or due process”

              That is government for you, corrupt and always is.

              “If you want to get philosophical, nobody actually owns anything as our lives themselves are temporary.”

              I own my life. I own my body. Hmm that is two counter examples so I suppose, seeing as only one is necessary to utterly disprove your universal statement, then I do not need to go an further here. Win to me.
              Well that isn’t getting philosophical as your argument is, as always, unsupported.

              “All the more reason to treat your neighbours decently while you’re here. ”

              Yes I am not sure who said otherwise.

              “It is actually common sense for elites to spread the wealth about, it tends to aid their survival.”

              Yes lets give our money to thieving selfish malcontents who would take it by force, it saves them from stealing from us. Not a winning argument there ropata

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 May 2015 at 7:44 am

                Libertarian entitlement dogma, ad nauseam.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  4 May 2015 at 5:50 pm

                  “Libertarian entitlement dogma, ad nauseam.”

                  Answer even 1 of my questions and you might be able to make comments like that but as it stand I have answered everything you have asked me. Clearly you could find no fault with them as you didn’t give any criticism or make any attempt to correct me.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 May 2015 at 7:37 pm

                    No attempt, apart from pointing out that you don’t understand what the social contract is.

                    • ropata …
                      4 May 2015 at 8:12 pm

                      Watch the libertarian looney regurgitate fox news talking points.

                      No man is an island, but Stuey appears to be a moral vacuum.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      4 May 2015 at 9:05 pm

                      “No attempt, apart from pointing out that you don’t understand what the social contract is.”

                      Well if that were the case you would have answered my questions and shown me to be a fool, you didn’t and as such I made you look stupid. The fact you keep posting and NEVER looking back just reinforces the fact you failed.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 May 2015 at 9:19 pm

                      We’ve established that your dribble is based on the false premise that is Libertarian entitlement dogma, and laughed at your fatuous flailing attempts to pretend that the social contract is a written document.

                      Why bother with your plagiarised long-dead zombie arguments?

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  5 May 2015 at 6:34 am

                  “We’ve established that your dribble is based on the false premise that is Libertarian entitlement dogma,”

                  Statements claimed as truth what else should I expect from this troll. I can do that too.

                  Well we have established that your dribble is based on the false premise that is Social Contract Theory.

                  “and laughed at your fatuous flailing attempts to pretend that the social contract is a written document.”

                  I ask questions to get you to mount a defense, you haven’t even tried which can only mean that you don’t know how. I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! To point out that if there are no parameters to this agreement then even if consented to it has no legal or moral bind either. I ask questions so I can get to the point and argue against the foundations of your so called justification. I ask these questions because you clearly never did and just accept anything that you think lets you control the lives of others to get what you want.

                  “Why bother with your plagiarised long-dead zombie arguments??”

                  My arguments are no more plagiarized than your ideas, concepts and statements are or did you formulate social contract theory?

            • Stuart Hawkins 7.2.1.1.2.2
              4 May 2015 at 9:12 pm

              Ropata I asked you how landlords are parasites and you still haven’t answered.
              I asked you to prove your claims, none was given.
              I asked you to support your statements and again no attempt was made at all.

              “Watch the libertarian looney regurgitate fox news talking points.”

              Show me one thing I have written that is a fox news talking point. You won’t because I haven’t nor will I ever do such but that won’t matter to you as you know I am smarter than you, you know I will crush your arguments and you know I am right but will continue your inane evasion to try and post ‘the last word’ and claim you have won. No wonder you do not have the things you claim others have stolen…

              “No man is an island, but Stuey appears to be a moral vacuum.”

              How so? What have I done to show any lack of morality whatsoever?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 May 2015 at 9:26 pm

                He’s a regular wealth creator, crushing all before him, proclaiming his own victory.

                If you get a magnifying glass you can just about see the poor little fellow, raging and screaming and throwing his tiny tanties. Or, you can simply recall every single libertarian ever. The querulous indignant whining, the vanishingly small minority faith. The sense of entitlement.

                There there, Stuey.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  5 May 2015 at 4:58 pm

                  As you are clearly a troll I will just choose one point you haven’t answered and repeat it to all your replies to me until you do answer it then move to another

                  You ask “Debunked” by whom? ”

                  Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
                  I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is bunk.

                  you still haven’t responded to this

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    7 May 2015 at 6:14 am

                    Yes, I have, you’re just so busy with the drivel you’ve swallowed you didn’t notice.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      7 May 2015 at 6:45 am

                      “Yes, I have, you’re just so busy with the drivel you’ve swallowed you didn’t notice.”

                      Nope I looked back and you didn’t at all; if you did could you please copy and paste? Ohh wait that would mean you would have to not have been lying.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:15 am

                      1. The focus on legal and/or moral binding is all yours, Stuey.
                      2. Back on Earth, it is customary for people to abide by the social contract, eg: ubiquitous tolerance of governance and taxation.
                      3. Libertarian entitlement dogma is drivel.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:47 pm

                      “1. The focus on legal and/or moral binding is all yours, Stuey.

                      No it isn’t as shown by your posts which I will be my only response to everything you post from now until you actually answer me.

                      “2. Back on Earth, it is customary for people to abide by the social contract, eg: ubiquitous tolerance of governance and taxation.”

                      Or because of some other thing like the fact the the government will imprison and/or fine you for not doing what it commands.

                      “3. Libertarian entitlement dogma is drivel.”

                      No such thing as Libertarians do not hold they are ‘entitled’ to anything but their human rights; or do you want to claim people are not entitled to their human rights?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 5:25 pm

                      You can re-frame your cry-baby whining about having to pay your taxes any way you choose: Libertarian entitlement dogma is drivel, designed to entrench pre-existing privilege.

                      Ingrates like you don’t get it.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 9:01 pm

                      “You can re-frame your cry-baby whining about having to pay your taxes any way you choose: Libertarian entitlement dogma is drivel, designed to entrench pre-existing privilege.

                      Ingrates like you don’t get it.”

                      All I ‘hear’ from you is…

                      ‘wha wha wha I am right so why are you asking me to justify it?’

                      ‘Clearly you must be stupid otherwise you would agree with my totally unsubstantiated and unsupported claims which fail to hold up under even the most cursory of rational examinations.’

                      ‘Your beliefs are drivel because I say they are and I will never explain why.’

                      ‘You want to entrench what is by making destroying the entire government structure that creates and maintains the status quo. Even though without the destruction of the government would result in massive changes across the board.’ (yes this is a self contradictory message which makes it so funny to see you make it again and again)

              • ropata …
                4 May 2015 at 11:56 pm

                Just a bit of hyperbole. You may be a nice chap but you’re advocating a system of exploitation that is currently crumbling around the world.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  5 May 2015 at 4:59 pm

                  “Just a bit of hyperbole. You may be a nice chap but you’re advocating a system of exploitation that is currently crumbling around the world.”

                  The system i advocate does not yet exist in the world so how can it be crumbling?

                  • ropata …
                    7 May 2015 at 1:26 am

                    There are a lot of business titans like the koch brothers that believe in your solipsistic delusions of grandeur. Pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, etc. (like Nietzsche, but the reality was that he was dying of syphilis)

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:48 pm

                      “There are a lot of business titans like the koch brothers that believe in your solipsistic delusions of grandeur. Pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, etc. (like Nietzsche, but the reality was that he was dying of syphilis)”

                      Try reading my posts you will see I have not stated or even implied any such views

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3
      25 April 2015 at 9:44 pm

      Blah blah pretend not to care, blah blah paint leftwingers as “playing the victim” to brush off their arguments, blah blah terrible math, blah blah strawperson argument no one has ever, ever made.

  8. The lost sheep 8
    25 April 2015 at 5:03 pm

    Whew, just feeling bloody grateful that myself and all the other top 1% / 10% / 50% commenters on this site managed to make a steady climb up in income and wealth over our lifetimes before some evil fucker removed all the stairs between floors on the wealth tower.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.1
      25 April 2015 at 5:19 pm

      Edited that slightly.

      “Whew, just feeling bloody grateful that myself and all the other top 1% / 10% / 50% commenters on this site managed to make a steady climb up in income and wealth over our lifetimes before some evil fucker (or illness or accident, or circumstance) removed all the stairs between floors on the wealth tower.”

      Methinks however you’re not really grateful you’re just re-iterating the notion that it was all due to your own effort and it’s other peoples own damn fault they aren’t there with you.

      I can find you plenty of people who were once wealthy who had a quite rapid descent into poverty through ill health or circumstance. No doubt if you saw them walking down the street you’d blame them for their current circumstances.

      PS Don’t use superlatives. I thinks it’s pretty clear that some of us are in the top 10% – 50% and more compassionate towards those that are not than many others of those who are and also comment here.

  9. The lost sheep 9
    25 April 2015 at 6:38 pm

    “Methinks however you’re not really grateful you’re just re-iterating the notion that it was all due to your own effort and it’s other peoples own damn fault they aren’t there with you.”

    Bollocks Mate.

    I am pointing out the fact that most people experience an upward transition between wealth and income groups over time.
    So a graphic portraying 50% of ‘us’ as being trapped in a static situation is a nonsense.

    The reality is that a significant % of that 50% are actually at an early stage of the classic wealth and income growth curve. So the group actually includes some who will become 1%’ers, many who will become 10%’er’s, and very many who will become 50%er’s.

    Exhaustive information on those trends here…
    https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/

    I don’t have an issue with the basic premise that inequality is growing, and we should address that. I just don’t think exaggerating the reality of it is helpful to a genuine discussion of how best to tackle it.

    • Weepus beard 9.1
      25 April 2015 at 7:11 pm

      Perhaps you don’t have an issue with the “basic premise”, but by using that language and the language in the rest if your post, you clearly seek to minimise it, just as the National party spin machine minimises all uncomfortable social indicators.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.2
      25 April 2015 at 7:18 pm

      yet the census data shows that of the 500,00 people aged between 55 and 59 only 39,000 have an income of over $100,000 per annum.

      Less than 10%.

      $45,000 or roughly about 10% have incomes of $70,00 to $100,000.

      The vast majority still have incomes of less than $50,000.

      Many of that age group have not benefited as you suggest and if it wasn’t for NZS we would have reverted to the pre-welfare state of high elderly poverty as well as the high levels of child poverty.

      Add to that the massive increase in the proportion of peoples incomes going to either landlords due to excessive rents or banks due to excessive house prices then you start to see even more problems.

      It’s not just the income disparity that’s the problem it’s the taking of what income the poor has by the wealthy.

      http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8110#

      • The lost sheep 9.2.1
        25 April 2015 at 8:01 pm

        If I was seeking to minimise the reality of the situation Weepus, do you think I would have posted a link to the document I did?

        Have you read that document? Do you think it is a fair picture of the reality?

      • The lost sheep 9.2.2
        25 April 2015 at 8:09 pm

        Once again Sssmith, if you follow the link to the document I posted, you will find that for many a decline in wealth is a classic part of the wealth cycle. It’s not rocket science – many people build up wealth over a long working life, and then wear it down during retirement.
        And then of course – the average life span has been rising for many years….

        But, yes, I agree that there are many who do not enter old age with sufficient wealth and income, and this is something we do need to address.

    • Murray Rawshark 9.3
      25 April 2015 at 9:54 pm

      I always thought sheep were useless at maths. You have confirmed it. If all the bottom 50% move up into the top 50% category, the top have to move down into the bottom. We don’t see that happening. What we do see is the top moving further away.

      • The lost sheep 9.3.1
        25 April 2015 at 10:20 pm

        And I’ve always thought that sharks are poor readers Murray.

        So please note i did not claim that all the bottom 50% move into the top 50%, and i did note that older people tended to drop back down in wealth.
        I also referenced a document that contains any amount of maths concerning the two way mobility of individuals between wealth bands during their lifetimes…..

        But a sharks real weak point IMO is that they are farking useless when it comes to basic logic.
        Have you considered birth, time, and death as co-coefficient’s in the inequality equation Murray?
        I believe they do render the concept of a closed system quite redundant.

        Baa baa baa.

        • Murray Rawshark 9.3.1.1
          25 April 2015 at 10:34 pm

          Great. Death will free us from austerity.

          • ropata 9.3.1.1.1
            3 May 2015 at 11:31 pm

            But Murray, our heroic leader John P. Key has demonstrated that one person can rise from a humble family to the dizzy heights of wealth and power enjoyed by the top 0.01%. So that means everyone can!!

            </sarc>

    • Stuart Hawkins 9.4
      9 May 2015 at 9:03 pm

      This discussion should not be about how to tackle inequality but about why we should care.

  10. Descendant Of Sssmith 10
    25 April 2015 at 9:33 pm

    I’ve previously read the MSD report and re-referenced it after your link to remind me.

    You are deliberately (IMHO) skirting around the point.

    You’re trying to suggest that the original premise of the post is not valid because of the age skew – ie the accumulation of wealth over time. You’re also bypassing the assertion that it takes more than hard work to get to financial nirvana.

    I’m pointing out, and excluded the over 65’s purposefully, that even in that age group the benefits are still only shared by a few.

    I have no doubt also that if I further split those stats data by ethnicity and gender that you’ve see an even greater disparity for women, pacific islanders and Maori.

    Simply being born as one of those three groups creates a disadvantageous bias to begin with. Still that can be resolved by better choosing your own race or gender – available now from the free market.

    The MSD report also quite correctly points out what I was saying about housing costs – in 1980 only 5% of people had high housing costs.

    “High outgoings for housing costs relative to income (high OTIs) are often associated with financial stress for low- to middle-income households. Low-income households especially (Q1 and Q2) can be left with insufficient income to meet other basic needs such as food, clothing, basic household operations, transport, medical care and education for household members.

    18 Overall, in HES 2013 around 27% of households had high OTIs – that is, housing costs of more than 30% of their disposable (after tax) income.

    19 For the bottom two income quintiles (Q1 and Q2), the proportions were 42% and 36% respectively, and there is evidence that the housing stress has been rising in both quintiles over recent years.”

  11. The lost sheep 11
    25 April 2015 at 10:58 pm

    “You’re trying to suggest that the original premise of the post is not valid because of the age skew – ie the accumulation of wealth over time. You’re also bypassing the assertion that it takes more than hard work to get to financial nirvana

    As much as you want me to conform to your stereotype Ssssmith, I did not make that assertion. You are exaggerating my point in order to render it illogical.

    My point was simple and limited. The wealth tower graphic portraying 50% of ‘us’ as being trapped in a static situation is a nonsense.

    I acknowledge the ‘disadvantageous bias’ factors you point out. They have been clearly established. Where I would differ from many on this site I suspect, is that I don’t see that as having an answer as simplistic as a re-distribution of wealth.
    Intelligence for instance has been shown to be a ‘disadvantage bias’. Do you think that can be dealt with by an intelligence tax?

    Where i would most disagree with you is that the benefits are only shared by a “few’.
    The reality, as backed up by those figures we have both read, is that most NZers actually live in a very satisfactory situation that has shown a steady increase in real wealth across all levels of society for many years.
    I say that after having spent a day with my dear old Mum, and listening to the stories she was telling my kids of life in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. “We couldn’t even imagine the wealth even the poorest people today take for granted” was her summary.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinations/nz/68022386/new-zealand-ranked-9th-in-world-for-happiness

    I don’t think any of that need diminish the plight of those who are caught at the bottom of the system. I just think debates tend to have better outcomes if they are free of exaggeration. My experience is that the more positive and open to evidence based discussion the proponents to a discussion are – the more likely a mutually successful outcome.

    Give me a economically responsible center right or left party that wants to increase tax in my income bracket by 10% in order to deliver absolutely world class education outcomes to all NZ kids and i’d be ticking their box next election
    Sadly, I know for a fact that no mainstream party in NZ believes they could be elected on such a promise…..

    I do dream that I might wake up one day to find a party has grown the balls and vision to sell such a bold policy to the citizens of Aotearoa.

  12. Descendant Of Sssmith 12
    26 April 2015 at 6:38 am

    “Where i would most disagree with you is that the benefits are only shared by a “few’.”

    In which case you are completely missing the point and as I pointed out earlier your use of superlatives (or if you prefer absolutes) makes it difficult to see your case as the more reasonable one you suggest you are proffering.

    The point of the original posit is that the wealth is increasingly being shared by fewer and fewer people and that mobility between the levels is becoming more and more difficult for most.

    “Where I would differ from many on this site I suspect, is that I don’t see that as having an answer as simplistic as a re-distribution of wealth.”

    Re-distribution of wealth is not simplistic and doesn’t only occur through taxation. Currently for instance wealth is being re-distributed through the executive class stealing workers compensation for output (wages) and shareholders profits through excessive salaries.

    There’s no question that the lowering of workers wages has come at the same time as increasing executive salaries. That’s redistributing wealth.

    There’s no question that those increasing executive wages have allowed many of those in that class to buy rental properties and then get a significant portion of those wages back through high rents (and that’s ignoring the capital gain they make as well).

    There’s no question that the extension of accommodation assistance to those not on benefit is a wealth distribution to landlords, there’s no question that WFF is a wealth distribution to substitute for low wages so employers can make more profit, there’s no question that the sale of state assets to the private sector was a massive wealth distribution exercise which didn’t benefit the public.

    Governments are re-distributing wealth all the time. Since Roger Douglas though the distribution pattern has not benefited the general public as much as it has those at the top.

    Collectively the country is wealthier but much of that increase in wealth has come at a cost to the working class.

    “Give me a economically responsible center right or left party that wants to increase tax in my income bracket by 10% in order to deliver absolutely world class education outcomes to all NZ kids and i’d be ticking their box next election”

    Based on current parties that would be portrayed as extreme left when it used to actually be the norm in this country. I’d be directly increasing benefit rates first though. You can’t learn if you are hungry and struggling to the extent that those on benefit have to.

    • ropata 12.1
      26 April 2015 at 8:44 am

      DoS you have nailed the issue perfectly.

      There’s no question that the lowering of workers wages has come at the same time as increasing executive salaries. That’s redistributing wealth.

      There’s no question that those increasing executive wages have allowed many of those in that class to buy rental properties and then get a significant portion of those wages back through high rents (and that’s ignoring the capital gain they make as well).

      There’s no question that the extension of accommodation assistance to those not on benefit is a wealth distribution to landlords, there’s no question that WFF is a wealth distribution to substitute for low wages so employers can make more profit, there’s no question that the sale of state assets to the private sector was a massive wealth distribution exercise which didn’t benefit the public.

      • Stuart Hawkins 12.1.1
        3 May 2015 at 10:42 am

        There is clearly questions to all of those I ask them all the time and people like you just make blank assertions like that with NO effort to substantiate them at all.

        Now let me just point out the logical fallacy your argument falls foul of in the unsubstantiated form your and the person you are quoting are making. The ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy; as your argument falls foul of this I need do nothing more at all to logically and reasonably destroy this entire line of argument.

        X occurred and then Y occurred therefore X caused Y. You also then add in a whole lot of negative effects to Y but we will get to those when you show X really does cause Y.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1
          3 May 2015 at 10:47 am

          😆

          Like you have a single citation to support a single one of your beliefs, although in your case I suggest you acquaint yourself with the Baloney Detection Kit first.

          • Stuart Hawkins 12.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2015 at 3:26 pm

            “Like you have a single citation to support a single one of your beliefs”

            I don’t need to give citations as I can explain and defend my ‘beliefs’ with logic and reason and I do not need to even do that yet as I have yet to make any claims but thanks for trying to play the game at least.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2015 at 3:45 pm

              Logic and reason and zero evidence, you muppet.

              Edit: for example, “there is no such thing as the social contract”, is a claim. One which reveals how shite you are at this “thinking” lark.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                3 May 2015 at 5:29 pm

                “Logic and reason and zero evidence, you muppet.”

                Again i have said nothing the requires any proof whatsoever.

                Edit: for example, “there is no such thing as the social contract”, is a claim. One which reveals how shite you are at this “thinking” lark.

                HAHAHAHA did you really just say i needed to prove the non-existence of something? Do you not know that that is an absolute non starter in any form of argument?

                Just read it again and yes you did ask for proof of non-exsistence; it is not up to me to prove non-existence in such a situation, the burden of proof is on the one who claims a social contract exists. If they exist you can easily show me the proof; the scroll or book or even tell me exactly what the terms are but you do not…
                Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, nobody can prove universal or absolute non-existence in the empirical manner you are asking for. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims, i.e. you and your kind who claim social contracts exist.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 May 2015 at 7:51 pm

                  No. Not “social contracts” – your witless re-definition has no currency.

                  What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed? Got your liberty panties in a bunch about the horrid oppressive taxes you must pay?

                  .

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    3 May 2015 at 9:44 pm

                    “No. Not “social contracts” – your witless re-definition has no currency.”

                    Umm do you understand the specific term of ‘social contract’ as opposed to the general term of ‘social contracts’? My statements of ‘social contracts’ is used to denote that no social contract has ever existed anywhere at any time and can not exist. This means I am saying that not only is the ‘social contract’ you think you are talking about does not exist but neither do does the ‘social contract’ of any and all other ‘societies’.
                    This means my choice of the term social contracts is deliberate and in no way redefines anything, what it does do is make your job ‘easier’ as all you have to do is show the actual existence of one social contract. This one can be the one you claim exists here or one anywhere else in the world.
                    Then again entirely up to you, we can make it that you have to prove this specific ‘social contract’ if you like. So go ahead PROVE IT OR SHUT UP!

                    “What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed?”

                    Well it really doesn’t because I am being governed in this system and I am explicitly telling you the government does not have my consent. I suppose that could mean I am the instantiation of a counterexample to your argument which by my simple existence proves your argument utterly false (all it needs is one counterexample to prove you false and it appears I am it although I could easily find many more).

                    Boom, drop the mic!

                    “Got your liberty panties in a bunch about the horrid oppressive taxes you must pay?”

                    Yes I do not like being stolen from and I do not like your greed and self centered egotism at thinking them justified. You are nothing more than a greedy lazy minded thief convinced of his right to take.

                    • ropata …
                      3 May 2015 at 10:02 pm

                      I don’t like being stolen from either and it’s pretty disgusting that the top few % of NZ landed gentry are amassing >100K/year in untaxed capital gains, in collusion with the government and loanshark banksters. It’s amazing that some people build a pile of money by working the system or skimming off others, and then justify it to themselves as their own hard earned property. It’s repulsive that some people use the advantages of living in a peaceful country like NZ with one of the world’s most business friendly policies, low corruption, modern infrastructure, good education, and yet claim they did it all themselves and don’t want to give back a cent.

                      I guess that’s how the aristocracy justifies their decadent parasitic existence.

                      inequality.org.nz

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2015 at 10:21 pm

                      Choke on it, Stuey. It will make a change from your graceless whinging.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    4 May 2015 at 6:42 am

                    “Choke on it, Stuey. It will make a change from your graceless whinging.”

                    No I think I will enjoy having out witted and out argued you at every turn, definitely won’t choke on it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 May 2015 at 7:06 am

                      😆

                      You pretended that the social contract is a written document, then pretended that was evidence of something other than your inability to grasp the issue.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      6 May 2015 at 11:03 pm

                      “The false narrative where you read my mind and start wanking on about totalitarian rulership.”

                      Funny because the post below clearly shows you stating the ‘false narrative’ you were referring to was in regards to my statement that there is no social contract. So does that mean you lied twice?

                      “You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.”

                      What false narrative?

                      “I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.”

                      Well if we look back at our posts we find this exchange

                      Me
                      ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                      If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                      You
                      The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                      Me
                      You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                      That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                      You
                      “Debunked” by whom?
                      In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                      You literally did claim it is Legally and/or Morally binding otherwise it would not suffice as the evidence you claimed it to be. Or is there another way to read the above that isn’t you holding social contracts as the support for your arguments? Because I can tell you right now that there isn’t any other way to read it.
                      Nothing to do with me or my comments here.

                      “That’s your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit characterisation,”

                      Well is it ok to characterise Mussolini as a fascist? I mean if it spouts totalitarian dogma, refuses to justify its statements like a totalitarian, and rages like an indolent child when its own statements catch it out just like a totalitarian; can we not call it a totalitarian?

                      “which feeds into your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit notions.”

                      Wow is there really any need for that language just because you were caught in a lie twice? Besides by your definition of plagiarized notions that includes any notion that you have that was thought of before you use it (regards of if you have it independently of those others or as a result of others) and as such is utterly meaningless and also the case for all of your notions.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    4 May 2015 at 5:59 pm

                    “You pretended that the social contract is a written document,”

                    No I ask you to prove its existence, either as a physical thing or as some contract that is formed. I do this as I know you can not do this as the concept is flawed and have found this extremely simple website that even you might understand.

                    http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                    You see by doing so I hoped you would mount a defense and then I could smash down all your assumptions and shoddy thinking.

                    “then pretended that was evidence of something other than your inability to grasp the issue.”

                    No it is a commonly used ploy in arguments so that the other person will actually stop making assertions and start making an argument instead. Clearly you are too ignorant to know the difference.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 May 2015 at 7:41 pm

                      Yes, your ridiculous attempt to redefine terms to self-proclaim victory has already been laughed at – you don’t need to repeat the performance.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    4 May 2015 at 9:23 pm

                    “Yes, your ridiculous attempt to redefine terms”

                    That never happened. I did add an s to the term social contract which you seem to think changes what we are talking about and somehow redefines the term social contract to mean something else. Need I point out it does not and actually is used to mean the basic concept ‘social contract’ in any and all forms. So no I did not redefine anything other than to go from saying the social contract that you claim for New Zealand is not real by denying there can be any such thing as a social contract. All I can say is get an education and come back when you can actually understand a conversation properly.

                    “to self-proclaim victory has already been laughed at – you don’t need to repeat the performance.”

                    I proclaim victory as mine is the only argument standing; that is victory by default. Here is a wikipedia page for you as that seems to be the only website you can read

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkover

                    You see you will not post any argument at all and as such the arguments I post win by lack of ANY competition from you. That is why I keep asking you to do something more that state something as fact and carry on.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 May 2015 at 9:30 pm

                      Until you understand the basic premise, what possible use can there be in letting you build your straw house upon it?

                      Sans Cle very politely made the effort to educate you. I’m going to stick with ridicule.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 6:37 am

                    “We’ve established that your dribble is based on the false premise that is Libertarian entitlement dogma,”

                    Statements claimed as truth what else should I expect from this troll. I can do that too.

                    Well we have established that your dribble is based on the false premise that is Social Contract Theory.

                    “and laughed at your fatuous flailing attempts to pretend that the social contract is a written document.”

                    I ask questions to get you to mount a defense, you haven’t even tried which can only mean that you don’t know how. I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! To point out that if there are no parameters to this agreement then even if consented to it has no legal or moral bind either. I ask questions so I can get to the point and argue against the foundations of your so called justification. I ask these questions because you clearly never did and just accept anything that you think lets you control the lives of others to get what you want.

                    “Why bother with your plagiarised long-dead zombie arguments??”

                    My arguments are no more plagiarized than your ideas, concepts and statements are or did you formulate social contract theory?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 May 2015 at 6:47 am

                      Yes, I know you have convinced yourself that the critical issue is whether the social contract is legally and morally binding.

                      Why would I need to exert myself answering such puerile and self-serving sophistry?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 6:45 am

                    “Until you understand the basic premise”

                    I clearly do as I was forced to ask the direct questions necessary to try get you to fall foul of the counter arguments to social contract theory. The fact that you do not try and substantiate or defend social contract theory in any way just means that I win by default.

                    “what possible use can there be in letting you build your straw house upon it?”

                    A straw house is easy to pull down if you know the ‘truth’ as you claim.

                    “Sans Cle very politely made the effort to educate you.”

                    Because you and your kind couldn’t possibly be wrong? That social contracts can’t just be a load of bunk? Did you even read the pretty website I linked you to? It gives counter-arguments in very small words so I am sure you can manage it.

                    “I’m going to stick with ridicule.”

                    Trolling

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 May 2015 at 6:52 am

                      Who said I know the truth? Ah, right, that was you setting up another useless false dichotomy.

                      You’ve conceded the point: that the social contract exists, and you’ve moved on to questioning whether it binds you. Get a clue: no-one cares how you justify your selfish anti-social hate, we just recognise it as borrowed.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 5:05 pm

                    “Who said I know the truth? Ah, right, that was you setting up another useless false dichotomy.”

                    If you didnt claim to know the truth then how can you claim I will be enlightened?

                    “You’ve conceded the point: that the social contract exists,”

                    I never said the concept did not exist only that we exist bound by a social contract and as such it is not a ‘real’ thing

                    “and you’ve moved on to questioning whether it binds you.”

                    Yes as that is what is necessary for it to exist morally and legally in the manner you are claiming. You do understand what we are talking about right?

                    ” Get a clue: no-one cares how you justify your selfish anti-social hate, we just recognise it as borrowed.”

                    As is your argument for selfish anti-individual totalitarian rulership

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 May 2015 at 5:15 pm

                      You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.

                      I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.

                      I did claim that your hateful whining is borrowed, banal, and beneath contempt, and invited you to choke on it.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 7:05 pm

                    “You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.”

                    What false narrative?

                    “I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.”

                    Well if we look back at our posts we find this exchange

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    You literally did claim it is Legally and/or Morally binding otherwise it would not suffice as the evidence you claimed it to be. Or is there another way to read the above that isn’t you holding social contracts as the support for your arguments? Because I can tell you right now that there isn’t any other way to read it.

                    “I did claim that your hateful whining is borrowed, banal, and beneath contempt, and invited you to choke on it.”

                    My arguments are no more borrowed than your ideas, concepts and statements are or did you formulate social contract theory?

                    Sorry couldn’t resist re-posting that sentence (with one word changed) as it is quite ironic.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2015 at 7:17 am

                      The false narrative where you read my mind and start wanking on about totalitarian rulership. That’s your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit characterisation, which feeds into your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit notions.

                      Nothing to do with me or my comments here.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    6 May 2015 at 11:06 pm

                    “Yes, I know you have convinced yourself that the critical issue is whether the social contract is legally and morally binding.”

                    Only because you claimed it was in this thread

                    “You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.”

                    What false narrative?

                    “I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.”

                    Well if we look back at our posts we find this exchange

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    You literally did claim it is Legally and/or Morally binding otherwise it would not suffice as the evidence you claimed it to be. Or is there another way to read the above that isn’t you holding social contracts as the support for your arguments? Because I can tell you right now that there isn’t any other way to read it.
                    Nothing to do with me or my comments here.

                    “Why would I need to exert myself answering such puerile and self-serving sophistry?”

                    Well read above chuckles it shows you bet the farm on a social contract and now you have lost the bet you are trying to re-define the terms and create a false narrative.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    7 May 2015 at 6:49 am

                    “That isn’t what ‘literally’ means, Stuey.”

                    adverb: literally

                    in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
                    “the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout”
                    synonyms: verbatim, word for word, line for line, letter for letter, to the letter; exactly, precisely, faithfully, closely, strictly, strictly speaking, accurately, rigorously;
                    rareliteratim
                    “their name, translated literally, means ‘the river’”

                    Yes in a literal sense you did claim it as your rationale and justification so that means yes I used literally correctly

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:05 am

                      Remedial English comprehension classes much?

                      In fact, Stuey, I claimed the social contract is customary, and you were too busy with your graceless puerile sophistry to notice.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    7 May 2015 at 7:52 pm

                    “Remedial English comprehension classes much?”

                    Sure I can give you some remedial English classes, you sure do need them, and no I will only charge you $40 an hour.

                    “In fact, Stuey, I claimed the social contract is customary, and you were too busy with your graceless puerile sophistry to notice.”

                    Not according to what you actually wrote which is below

                    “The false narrative where you read my mind and start wanking on about totalitarian rulership.”

                    Funny because the post below clearly shows you stating the ‘false narrative’ you were referring to was in regards to my statement that there is no social contract. So does that mean you lied twice?

                    “You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.”

                    What false narrative?

                    “I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.”

                    Well if we look back at our posts we find this exchange

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    You literally did claim it is Legally and/or Morally binding otherwise it would not suffice as the evidence you claimed it to be. Or is there another way to read the above that isn’t you holding social contracts as the support for your arguments? Because I can tell you right now that there isn’t any other way to read it.
                    Nothing to do with me or my comments here.

                    “That’s your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit characterisation,”

                    Well is it ok to characterise Mussolini as a fascist? I mean if it spouts totalitarian dogma, refuses to justify its statements like a totalitarian, and rages like an indolent child when its own statements catch it out just like a totalitarian; can we not call it a totalitarian?

                    “which feeds into your typical plagiarised Libertarian fuckwit notions.”

                    Wow is there really any need for that language just because you were caught in a lie twice? Besides by your definition of plagiarized notions that includes any notion that you have that was thought of before you use it (regards of if you have it independently of those others or as a result of others) and as such is utterly meaningless and also the case for all of your notions.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 10:00 pm

                      My old history teacher used to say that the Bolsheviks came to power because they droned on for so long everyone else got bored to death and stopped coming to meetings.

                      Stuey has a constituency!

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    16 May 2015 at 2:57 pm

                    “You mean my argument that you just invented a false narrative about.”
                    “I didn’t claim that the social contract exists legally nor morally, merely that it exists.”

                    Then how does it serve the purpose of justifying government as you claim it does?

                    “I did claim that your hateful whining is borrowed, banal, and beneath contempt, and invited you to choke on it.”

                    Because you can’t answer my questions.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      16 May 2015 at 3:18 pm

                      Why don’t you use your intellect and education to add value somewhere in society instead of conducting this ridiculous dogmatic proselytizing?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 May 2015 at 3:20 pm

                      I didn’t say it justifies government. Pay attention.

                      Does the word ‘model’ ring any bells?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    17 May 2015 at 9:53 am

                    “I didn’t say it justifies government. Pay attention.
                    Does the word ‘model’ ring any bells?”

                    Yes it does but if you were saying ‘here is a model’ and not this is the justification for government; that would mean that when you cited the page and claimed it was a ‘fact’ that answered my demand for justification of government you were lying.

                    Can’t have it both ways; you can’t be saying it isn’t justification for government and that you weren’t lying when you explicitly claimed it was by answering my question with SCT.

                    That is what logic and reason calls undeniable proof that your argument is false.

        • tricledrown 12.1.1.2
          3 May 2015 at 11:32 am

          Stuart your XY =Zero

  13. Stuart Hawkins 13
    3 May 2015 at 3:28 pm

    At least someone who understands what the arguments against my position are. Thanks for the support (although I think you didn’t realize it was support at the time.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      4 May 2015 at 8:17 am

      Evidence of your ability to parrot other people’s notions of Libertarian entitlement doesn’t confer ownership of said notions.

      • Stuart Hawkins 13.1.1
        4 May 2015 at 6:07 pm

        “Evidence of your ability to parrot other people’s notions of Libertarian entitlement doesn’t confer ownership of said notions.”

        You are parroting left wing dogma and plain unsubstantiated statements, hell you won’t even try to substantiate them when I ask you to.

        For example you asked me

        “Debunked” by whom? ”

        in regards to a Social contract and I reply…

        Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
        I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is bunk.

        And you simply ignore all of this. You parrot catch phrases and ‘buzz words’ but do not attempt to argue against what I write or support your claims.

        I do not own the ideas I espouse (never claimed to either) but then neither do you own those you regurgitate but at least I can argue for them in an adaptive and improvised manner. I suppose this is why I have crushed you in ever single post so far.

        • Sans Cle 13.1.1.1
          4 May 2015 at 7:36 pm

          Hi Stuart. I have read your comments above. I understand you do not believe in a social contract. That does not mean to say it does not exist.
          First point, it exists at the very least as a social construct – perhaps not as you understand a contract in signed legal terms; but was framed in a particular historic context to make sense of how society is ordered (I guess you know this, as you alluded to philosophers you have read).
          So for clarity, is it that you vehemently oppose a “social contract” i.e. do not agree to any involvement with the State? If so, a follow on question….if your property was damaged (either an assault on you or physical property), would you call the police, or not evoke the right to protect your property?

          That is the problem with denying the existence of social contracts.

          Of interest to me is the more recent economic thinking about social contracts – stemming largely from Oliver Williamson’s writing (strict contracting in the sense that you referred to, with ‘upheld’ written agreements ……upheld by who, I am tempted to discuss, but will desist…..) and Douglas North’s explicit classification of formal and informal contracting (if a mate helps you out, do you return the favour?). Game theorists are testing the strength of informal contracting and their motivations – which are framed in economic terms of pay-offs for individuals (e.g. What is the pay-off for you, commenting on this blog?).

          There is an emerging literature from France (Laurent Thevenot, Andre Orlean, amongst others) who look at the evolution of conventions into formal law, and although you probably won’t find an explicit discussion about a social contract (discussion is much more nuanced) it is all about how what is acceptable within a society (based on set of prevailing morals) and how that becomes enshrined in law and upheld by State agencies. So the social contact is alive and well, and very much at the centre of current economic thinking, and can be found in the work of recent Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners: Coase, Becker, Fogel, Nash/Harsanyi, Kahn, Aumann/Schelling, Ostrom, Williamson.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1
            4 May 2015 at 7:39 pm

            But, but, but, Stuey has stated categorically that it doesn’t exist and his belief is so strong!

          • Stuart Hawkins 13.1.1.1.2
            4 May 2015 at 9:40 pm

            “Hi Stuart. I have read your comments above. I understand you do not believe in a social contract. That does not mean to say it does not exist.”

            No and that is why I want someone to try and defend it so I can destroy their argument.

            “First point, it exists at the very least as a social construct”

            An intellectual concept and nothing else?

            “erhaps not as you understand a contract in signed legal terms;”

            So not morally or legally binding then?

            “but was framed in a particular historic context to make sense of how society is ordered (I guess you know this, as you alluded to philosophers you have read).”

            Yes I do know this and I know all the flaws to making such an argument. This is why I want someone to pose a defense of them.

            “Of interest to me is the more recent economic thinking about social contracts – stemming largely from Oliver Williamson’s writing (strict contracting in the sense that you referred to, with ‘upheld’ written agreements ……upheld by who, I am tempted to discuss, but will desist…..) and Douglas North’s explicit classification of formal and informal contracting (if a mate helps you out, do you return the favour?). Game theorists are testing the strength of informal contracting and their motivations – which are framed in economic terms of pay-offs for individuals (e.g. What is the pay-off for you, commenting on this blog?). ”

            The payoff was intended to be having a chance to try out arguments but nobody wants to play.

            “There is an emerging literature from France (Laurent Thevenot, Andre Orlean, amongst others) who look at the evolution of conventions into formal law, and although you probably won’t find an explicit discussion about a social contract (discussion is much more nuanced) it is all about how what is acceptable within a society (based on set of prevailing morals) and how that becomes enshrined in law and upheld by State agencies. So the social contact is alive and well, and very much at the centre of current economic thinking, and can be found in the work of recent Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners: Coase, Becker, Fogel, Nash/Harsanyi, Kahn, Aumann/Schelling, Ostrom, Williamson.”

            Sorry didn’t finish this section as it seemed too much like an appeal to authority. We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding as such I fail to see the relevance of these authorities; but then again I did not finish the paragraph so please tell me to read it if I am wrong.

            “So for clarity, is it that you vehemently oppose a “social contract” i.e. do not agree to any involvement with the State?”

            No I do not agree that the state has the consent of the people to do as it pleases which is what I tried to get from the others by asking of its terms.

            “If so, a follow on question….if your property was damaged (either an assault on you or physical property), would you call the police, or not evoke the right to protect your property? ”

            I think we both see this is a straw man argument so please do not bother with the hook as I already know how to cut the line. Unlike what others have tried to portray me as I am an Anarchic-capitalist so lets dispense of the games and get to the supporting arguments.

            “That is the problem with denying the existence of social contracts.”

            No that is getting assistance from people who are there to do that specific purpose, I had hoed for better when i started reading your reply.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.2.1
              4 May 2015 at 9:53 pm

              We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding .

              No, that’s the narrow frame you want to confine the discussion to, as part of your feeble failure to redefine terms to suit your borrowed conceit.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                5 May 2015 at 7:10 pm

                “We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding .

                No, that’s the narrow frame you want to confine the discussion to, as part of your feeble failure to redefine terms to suit your borrowed conceit.”

                What other context of discussion can be relevant given how this discussion started? If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it answered my request for you to substantiate your dismissal of the argument I put forward?

                Thread follows

                Me
                ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                You
                The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                Me
                You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                You
                “Debunked” by whom?
                In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 May 2015 at 7:27 am

                  What if the social contract is neither legally nor morally binding, and yet people still abide by it, Stuey? What is it then?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    6 May 2015 at 11:08 pm

                    “What if the social contract is neither legally nor morally binding, and yet people still abide by it, Stuey?”

                    Fear of the unjustified use of government force and coercion to exact their authority upon peaceful people.

                    “What is it then?”

                    Pretty sure I just said it above.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 6:12 am

                      No, Stuey, other people don’t share your anti-social crocodile fears.

                    • Tracey …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:35 am

                      Just trying to follow this thread…

                      If fear is a “reason” people follow a social contract that is neither legally or morally binding then could kindness also be a reason people follow or support a social contract? Or is kindness a moral construct where fear is not?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 8:01 am

                      Stuey has yet to demonstrate that this particular fear exists anywhere outside of Libertarian sophistry. He doesn’t feel it: it’s a self-serving rhetorical device.

          • ropata 13.1.1.1.3
            5 May 2015 at 9:20 am

            +1 billion, awesome comment Sans Cle.

            • Stuart Hawkins 13.1.1.1.3.1
              5 May 2015 at 7:11 pm

              How so? A straw man argument and an appeal to authority? That doesn’t even qualify as an actual argument at all.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.2
          4 May 2015 at 7:44 pm

          Crushed me, and demonstrated that you have no understanding of the social contract, and are reduced to the pathetic attempt to redefine it to suit your borrowed drivel.

          I’m so crushed 😆

          • Stuart Hawkins 13.1.1.2.1
            4 May 2015 at 9:46 pm

            “Crushed me, and demonstrated that you have no understanding of the social contract, and are reduced to the pathetic attempt to redefine it to suit your borrowed drivel.

            I’m so crushed ?”

            That never happened. I did add an s to the term social contract which you seem to think changes what we are talking about and somehow redefines the term social contract to mean something else. Need I point out it does not and actually is used to mean the basic concept ‘social contract’ in any and all forms. So no I did not redefine anything other than to go from saying the social contract that you claim for New Zealand is not real by denying there can be any such thing as a social contract. All I can say is get an education and come back when you can actually understand a conversation properly.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.2.1.1
              4 May 2015 at 9:54 pm

              You seem to think your personal definition of the term “social contract” is relevant and interesting.

              It’s neither.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                5 May 2015 at 6:40 am

                “You seem to think your personal definition of the term “social contract” is relevant and interesting.”

                It isn’t a personal definition it is a philosophical term but thanks for trying to play.

                “It’s neither.”

                Because you are not smart enough to understand a discussion

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  5 May 2015 at 6:56 am

                  What’s to understand: you’re simply regurgitating spoon-fed libertarian drivel, and you’ve already conceded the point: that the social contract exists.

                  Even a dummy like me can grasp that.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    5 May 2015 at 7:20 pm

                    “What’s to understand: you’re simply regurgitating spoon-fed libertarian drivel, and you’ve already conceded the point: that the social contract exists.”

                    Now who is the one trying to redefine the parameters of the discussion.

                    What’s to understand: you’re simply regurgitating spoon-fed libertarian drivel, and you’ve already conceded the point: that the social contract exists.
                    The ‘framing’ of the discussion was as follows

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    Even a dummy can grasp that you did put forward social contract theory as a real legally and/or morally binding thing, if you didn’t why ask if it were debunked? It wouldn’t matter to you if it was as by saying it is debunked I have EXPLICITLY said the concept exists and if that is all you cared about you would have been happy and ended it there…

                    Can I call victory on that point? I mean there is absolutely no way you can deny I am right given what the facts of what we both posted; or is that somehow laughable? I really need to know as you seem to think calling victory when you have no one even attempting to challenge your argument is a no go so just thought I would check?

                    “Even a dummy like me can grasp that.”

                    I never said you were a dummy, I implied it when you I thought you were being intentionally dense but I don’t think I ever actually said it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 May 2015 at 7:25 am

                      Fuck you’re boring, Stuey.

                      Its legal and moral status are completely irrelevant. Not to your plagiarised argument, obviously, because you’re suffering from Libertarian fuckwit syndrome.

                      Back on Earth, it is customary for people to abide by the social contract, eg: ubiquitous tolerance of governance and taxation.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                6 May 2015 at 11:13 pm

                “Fuck you’re boring, Stuey.”

                Funny how you claim that after I have proven you are a liar, you seem like a puffed up prick that would shrink down to size if you actually were in a room with someone.

                “Its legal and moral status are completely irrelevant.”

                Not according to you when you started this thread by claiming it as the justification for your crap.

                “We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding .

                No, that’s the narrow frame you want to confine the discussion to, as part of your feeble failure to redefine terms to suit your borrowed conceit.”

                What other context of discussion can be relevant given how this discussion started? If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it answered my request for you to substantiate your dismissal of the argument I put forward?

                Thread follows

                Me
                ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                You
                The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                Me
                You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                You
                “Debunked” by whom?
                In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                “Not to your plagiarised argument, obviously, because you’re suffering from Libertarian fuckwit syndrome.”

                Alright I have put up with your abuse enough you arrogant little prick, I guarantee you wouldn’t be so tough to my face.

                “Back on Earth, it is customary for people to abide by the social contract, eg: ubiquitous tolerance of governance and taxation.”

                Because of fear of sanctions and retribution but hey nice try.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 May 2015 at 6:10 am

                  Poor Stuey, terrified of sanctions and retribution. Be brave, little Stuey. Oh, and the correct term is in your face, sweety.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    7 May 2015 at 6:51 am

                    “Poor Stuey, terrified of sanctions and retribution. Be brave, little Stuey. Oh, and the correct term is in your face, sweety.”

                    So you admit you have no answer to my points?

                    “Fuck you’re boring, Stuey.”

                    Funny how you claim that after I have proven you are a liar, you seem like a puffed up prick that would shrink down to size if you actually were in a room with someone.

                    “Its legal and moral status are completely irrelevant.”

                    Not according to you when you started this thread by claiming it as the justification for your crap.

                    “We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding .

                    No, that’s the narrow frame you want to confine the discussion to, as part of your feeble failure to redefine terms to suit your borrowed conceit.”

                    What other context of discussion can be relevant given how this discussion started? If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it answered my request for you to substantiate your dismissal of the argument I put forward?

                    Thread follows

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 May 2015 at 6:37 am

                  In summation:

                  Ropata: … rogernomics destroyed the social contract…

                  Poor Stuey: No such thing as a social contract, never was.

                  OAB: Ridicule and contempt (I’m paraphrasing).

                  Poor Stuey: ok, you win, the social contract exists, but I’m not bound by it. (again paraphrased)

                  OAB: Yawn. No-one said you were, you selfish, ungrateful sociopath.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    7 May 2015 at 6:53 am

                    Again you resort to lies

                    Ropata: … rogernomics destroyed the social contract…

                    Poor Stuey: No such thing as a social contract, never was.

                    OAB: Ridicule and contempt (I’m paraphrasing).

                    Poor Stuey: ok, you win, the social contract exists, but I’m not bound by it. (again paraphrased)

                    OAB: Yawn. No-one said you were, you selfish, ungrateful sociopath.

                    This is the actual thread as shown by this website and it lacks any similarity to what you claim so how about you go crawl back under your bridge

                    “Fuck you’re boring, Stuey.”

                    Funny how you claim that after I have proven you are a liar, you seem like a puffed up prick that would shrink down to size if you actually were in a room with someone.

                    “Its legal and moral status are completely irrelevant.”

                    Not according to you when you started this thread by claiming it as the justification for your crap.

                    “We are discussing the existence of a social contract as being morally and legally binding .

                    No, that’s the narrow frame you want to confine the discussion to, as part of your feeble failure to redefine terms to suit your borrowed conceit.”

                    What other context of discussion can be relevant given how this discussion started? If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it answered my request for you to substantiate your dismissal of the argument I put forward?

                    Thread follows

                    Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 May 2015 at 7:08 am

                      If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it…

                      Reading is a skill.

  14. Stuart Hawkins 14
    7 May 2015 at 7:55 pm

    “If you were not claiming a social contract exists in a legally and/or morally binding fashion then why did you claim it…

    Reading is a skill.”

    Yes it is and you need to improve your skill level as what you wrote does not match what you claim you wrote

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      7 May 2015 at 10:02 pm

      Yeah, whatever Stuey. You’re being oppressed. It’s tragic.

      • ropata 14.1.1
        7 May 2015 at 10:09 pm

        Humans are social creatures, it’s ironic that someone who propounds rugged individualism feels the need to go on to social media to promote an anti social message. These types ought to go live on Pitcairn Island or something.

        • Stuart Hawkins 14.1.1.1
          10 May 2015 at 3:21 pm

          How is pointing out that you have no right to do the things you advocate anti-social? How is telling you ‘hold on a minute I want on part of that’ being anti-social?

      • Stuart Hawkins 14.1.2
        9 May 2015 at 4:51 pm

        Thanks for the admission I was right all along, that is all you needed to do. No stop being an ass and start being part of the solution; ABOLISH GOVERNMENT NOW!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.2.1
          9 May 2015 at 4:55 pm

          It’s often said that sarcasm doesn’t translate well to text, and here you are one.

          Perhaps I need to be blunt.

          PS: My Libertarian translator parses your yelling as “entrench my privilege now!” Curious.

          • Stuart Hawkins 14.1.2.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 9:13 pm

            “It’s often said that sarcasm doesn’t translate well to text, and here you are one.”

            Wow irony; this is getting a bit too ‘Meta’ for me so I am not going to respond to your sarcastic comment about my sarcastic response to your sarcastic comment other than to say. Really?

            “Perhaps I need to be blunt.”

            Well nobody could accuse you of having finesse, subtlety, or an argument so why change now?

            “PS: My Libertarian translator parses your yelling as “entrench my privilege now!” Curious.”

            In words your ‘I can’t win an argument so i will just claim the other person is doing something that directly contradicts everything they have said so far’ translator.

            Edit: By the way that was sarcasm; I tried to make it obvious but then I realized who I was dealing with and added this

            Also I just saw this exchange below and I never got your answer to it at all (because it doesn’t exist as you ignored it)

            “What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed?”

            Well it really doesn’t because I am being governed in this system and I am explicitly telling you the government does not have my consent. I suppose that could mean I am the instantiation of a counterexample to your argument which by my simple existence proves your argument utterly false (all it needs is one counterexample to prove you false and it appears I am it although I could easily find many more).

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.2.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 9:49 pm

              Indeed, Stuey, and yet, there is governance, and why is that? It’s the overwhelming majority consent, Stuey. Of the governed, Stuey. Capiche, Stuey?

              Doubt it.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                9 May 2015 at 10:23 pm

                “Indeed, Stuey, and yet, there is governance, and why is that?”

                Because the government runs education and is focused at churning out unquestioning ignorant brutes like you.

                “It’s the overwhelming majority consent, Stuey. Of the governed, Stuey. Capiche, Stuey?”

                So if you don’t agree then too bad we will still include you because the majority just wills it; you are but a slave to the majority after all.

                “Doubt it.”

                No I just recognize it is immoral but you should have known that as you claim to know all about my beliefs and why they are wrong. So one must ask did you know that and are just making things up for some inexplicable reason or did you not know and are you lying about your claims of knowledge? I guess we can simplify that even further to are you irrational or are you a liar?

                Trick question, it’s both. You are irrational and a liar.

                Also again no answer to the below which is a complete obliteration of your ‘consent of the governed argument’

                “What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed?”

                Well it really doesn’t because I am being governed in this system and I am explicitly telling you the government does not have my consent. I suppose that could mean I am the instantiation of a counterexample to your argument which by my simple existence proves your argument utterly false (all it needs is one counterexample to prove you false and it appears I am it although I could easily find many more).

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  9 May 2015 at 10:39 pm

                  There are no unquestioning ignorant brutes like me. There is only me.

                  Just one question: what kind of hypocritical sack of shit thinks that ‘people who are stronger should gain advantage’ and then complains about Parliamentary democracy?

                  The majority is stronger than you are, so according to your rules* what’s to stop us gaining advantage over you?

                  Oops, that’s two questions. Brutal.

                  *self-serving drivel

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    9 May 2015 at 10:49 pm

                    “There are no unquestioning ignorant brutes like me.”

                    How can you say that? You admit you are unquestioning so how could you possibly know that as you wouldn’t ask such a question to begin with.

                    “There is only me.”

                    Wow am losing my shit right now; this is too funny for words.

                    “Just one question: what kind of hypocritical sack of shit thinks that ‘people who are stronger should gain advantage’ and then complains about Parliamentary democracy?”

                    One is interacting in mutually voluntary ways and the other is forcing capitulation. Did you really need to ask that question? I mean the answer was pretty obvious.

                    “The majority is stronger than you are, so according to your rules* what’s to stop us gaining advantage over you?”

                    Ummm do you understand what my position is? Because the above question kind of means that you don’t understand it at all.

                    “Oops, that’s two questions. Brutal.”

                    The fact that you can only do to me that which I voluntarily accept and anything else is a form of oppression and force. By asking that question you are saying what is stopping us from making you a slave or killing people like you because we don’t like your Hair/eye/skin colour or just don’t agree with your political beliefs.

                    “*self-serving drivel”

                    read above

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:00 pm

                      “…mutually voluntary…”

                      Who’s volunteering to be the weak, Stuey? Do you think before you revert to the liturgy?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    9 May 2015 at 11:25 pm

                    ““…mutually voluntary…”

                    Who’s volunteering to be the weak, Stuey? Do you think before you revert to the liturgy?”

                    Well in respect to mental and physical capacities in comparison to me your genetics have volunteered you to take the role of the weak.

                    Also again no answer to the below which is a complete obliteration of your ‘consent of the governed argument’

                    “What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed?”

                    Well it really doesn’t because I am being governed in this system and I am explicitly telling you the government does not have my consent. I suppose that could mean I am the instantiation of a counterexample to your argument which by my simple existence proves your argument utterly false (all it needs is one counterexample to prove you false and it appears I am it although I could easily find many more).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:41 pm

                      That’s a lot of words to simply convey that you can’t answer the question, Stuey. Are you so unsure of your ‘mutually voluntary’ gobshite that you’ve abandoned it already?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    10 May 2015 at 7:45 am

                    “That’s a lot of words to simply convey that you can’t answer the question, Stuey.”

                    I have answered all of your questions; simply take a look back and see. You, however, have failed to even attempt an answer to most of my questions

                    “Are you so unsure of your ‘mutually voluntary’ gobshite that you’ve abandoned it already?”

                    How is it even possible to come up with the above given this is how I responded; it clearly shows that the above is totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on what I have said. The only possible way it could be relevant is if you think that people choose their natural level of strength and intelligence but that can’t be what you are claiming, can it?

                    “““…mutually voluntary…”

                    Who’s volunteering to be the weak, Stuey? Do you think before you revert to the liturgy?”

                    Well in respect to mental and physical capacities in comparison to me your genetics have volunteered you to take the role of the weak.

                    Also again no answer to the below which is a complete obliteration of your ‘consent of the governed argument’

                    “What’s the matter, poppet, can’t you deal with the fact that governance relies on the consent of the governed?”

                    Well it really doesn’t because I am being governed in this system and I am explicitly telling you the government does not have my consent. I suppose that could mean I am the instantiation of a counterexample to your argument which by my simple existence proves your argument utterly false (all it needs is one counterexample to prove you false and it appears I am it although I could easily find many more).”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 8:26 am

                      Yes, you ducked the question and lashed out with insults. There’s no need to repeat yourself it was evident you had no answer the first time.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    11 May 2015 at 3:58 pm

                    “Yes, you ducked the question and lashed out with insults.”

                    WHAT!!!!!!!! You have been doing that to me from very early on! I on the other hand have argued all your points and given no insults at all (apart from conditional statements that rely on you fulfilling the relevant criteria)

                    “There’s no need to repeat yourself it was evident you had no answer the first time.”

                    The answer is there where is yours to( one random selecion of the many instances you have failed to answer and instead ducked the questions and any arguments at all) this

                    Why are governments necessary to provide x and y?
                    Why are x and y desirable?
                    Why would there be chaos if Governments as we know them were abolished?
                    Why is government better than the systems that are alternate?
                    Why are billionaires bad?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2015 at 4:12 pm

                      What inaccuracies or misconceptions are there in the wikipedia article on social contract theory?

                      If the NZ government doesn’t have your consent, why aren’t you overseas? Are you imprisoned here?

    • McFlock 14.2
      7 May 2015 at 10:58 pm

      Skipped this thread over the last few days. Didn’t realise that it had become such a traffic accident. Stuart, the point of Fisking a comment is to intersperse the quotations with relevant counter-arguments, rather than random libertarian ejaculate that merely reflects the staggering number of imaginary voices that can be generated within a single braincell.

      Having just spent a while reading through most of the comments, it seems that Stuart has finally managed to provide a response that is actually relevant to the extract he quotes. Admittedly his comment is a variation of the “I know you are but what am I” theme, but at least he’s finally adopted a level of discourse that even he can follow.

      [slow clap]

      • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.1
        9 May 2015 at 4:57 pm

        Well McFlock that would be the point if the other person was not lying. You see the posting of the thread, in its entirety, proves that he is lying, avoiding the requirement to substantiate his claims, and trying to re-frame the argument to a pointless discussion about the existence of a concept as only a concept.

        “Having just spent a while reading through most of the comments, it seems that Stuart has finally managed to provide a response that is actually relevant to the extract he quotes. Admittedly his comment is a variation of the “I know you are but what am I” theme, but at least he’s finally adopted a level of discourse that even he can follow. ”

        How is that the case? The thread started with me asking him to support his claim and him claiming he had done so with a link to the Wikipedia page on social contract theory. There is no other explanation for that than he believed the social contract was in force. It then shows him explicitly claiming that did not happen. That makes him a liar end of story; the fact you are not on my side in this proves you are biased and therefore ignorable.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 4:58 pm

          “In force”.

          Liar. I said it is customary. You failed to grasp that because you’re a Libertarian lackwit.

          • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 9:18 pm

            ““In force”.

            Liar. I said it is customary. You failed to grasp that because you’re a Libertarian lackwit.”

            PROVE IT!!!! COPY AND PASTE WHERE YOU SAID THAT!!!! You haven’t because you didn’t; the thread clearly shows you never did.

            Also, so what if it is customary? It would fail to satisfy my request for evidence if it were only customary; so by saying that you are actually saying that you had no evidence at all!!!! In other words you would be admitting that you have no support or reason for your beliefs.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 9:30 pm

              http://thestandard.org.nz/welcome-to-wealth-gap-tower/#comment-1010473

              That’s just one of the times I said it you slack-brained, inattentive bore.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                9 May 2015 at 10:41 pm

                Ummm that is after the fact; you posted that DAYS AFTER you made your claims of an answer to my argument and claims of ‘false narratives’ etc. This does nothing but prove my point that you are a liar grasping for straws after being exposed as such.

                Also, so what if it is customary? It would fail to satisfy my request for evidence if it were only customary; so by saying that you are actually saying that you had no evidence at all!!!! In other words you would be admitting that you have no support or reason for your beliefs and no reason to pretend that social contract theory was an answer.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  9 May 2015 at 10:55 pm

                  No, Stuey, once you were forced to admit that the social contract is a thing, you fucked up your basic premise, blithering on about legal this and moral that. I said you were barking up the wrong tree at the time, and you were utterly inattentive.

                  Stop whining and take some personal responsibility for a change.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    9 May 2015 at 11:41 pm

                    “No, Stuey, once you were forced to admit that the social contract is a thing, you fucked up your basic premise,”

                    Nope the framing of the discussion is as included below. In it we see you try to claim that social contract theory was justification for your assertions. The fact that I know of it as social contract theory and discussed it at all proves that I knew it exists in the very limited and irrelevant context you are now trying to claim this whole discussion was about for you. The fact you held it as justification means that you must have thought it was in force otherwise bringing it up was totally and utterly irrelevant; especially as the answer to my request for support to your statements.

                    “blithering on about legal this and moral that. I said you were barking up the wrong tree at the time, and you were utterly inattentive.”

                    See below. You can not have your cake and eat it to; either you were meaning it exists and has no legal or moral relevance and knew you were answering my request (in the point marked with * at front and back) with rubbish or you did think it morally and/or legally relevant and are now lying about that fact. There are no other options one must be true.

                    “Stop whining and take some personal responsibility for a change.”

                    Hey I am no the one ignoring the majority of your posts content and trying to evade direct questions.

                    You
                    The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.
                    * Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’ *
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.
                    Me
                    You ask “Debunked” by whom? ”
                    Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
                    I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is bunk.
                    “In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have”
                    Wow so you already admit you can’t win this argument by going straight to insults. I can do that too – You are self centered egotistical self serving pseudo- moral totalitarian with about as much reason and forethought as a potato. Now if you are finished wasting time and showing you can’t argue with me can we move on or do you think you will give it a go.
                    ” when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue?”
                    When the parameters were defined and the questions answered; which I should point out had nothing to do with social contracts.
                    “You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.”
                    Well you might want to come up with something else because there is no such thing outside of your imagination.

                    EDIT: If I didn’t think it existed as a concept then how could I claim it was debunked?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:55 pm

                      Nah, Stuey, you just flailed and failed to grasp the point I was making. Go back and read my remarks again, and pay close attention to the meaning of words.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    10 May 2015 at 7:57 am

                    “Nah, Stuey, you just flailed and failed to grasp the point I was making.”

                    By definition of what you now claim to be your meaning you could not have been making a point. To make a point in answer to my request for substantiation you would need to reply with something relevant and a concept with no real world extansiation is not relevant

                    “Go back and read my remarks again,”

                    I have and I am still correct

                    “and pay close attention to the meaning of words.”

                    So to paraphrase ‘you are wrong Stuart but I can’t tell you why or show you at all, so go back and re-read everything to find the proof I claim is there without any backing whatsoever.’ Well let me respond in kind. I don’t need to I noticed what you were meaning at the time and I already answered it in the thread so you will need to go back and read my remarks again while paying close attention to the meaning of words.

                    “No, Stuey, once you were forced to admit that the social contract is a thing, you fucked up your basic premise,”

                    Nope the framing of the discussion is as included below. In it we see you try to claim that social contract theory was justification for your assertions. The fact that I know of it as social contract theory and discussed it at all proves that I knew it exists in the very limited and irrelevant context you are now trying to claim this whole discussion was about for you. The fact you held it as justification means that you must have thought it was in force otherwise bringing it up was totally and utterly irrelevant; especially as the answer to my request for support to your statements.

                    “blithering on about legal this and moral that. I said you were barking up the wrong tree at the time, and you were utterly inattentive.”

                    See below. You can not have your cake and eat it to; either you were meaning it exists and has no legal or moral relevance and knew you were answering my request (in the point marked with * at front and back) with rubbish or you did think it morally and/or legally relevant and are now lying about that fact. There are no other options one must be true.

                    “Stop whining and take some personal responsibility for a change.”

                    Hey I am no the one ignoring the majority of your posts content and trying to evade direct questions.

                    You
                    The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.
                    * Me
                    ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                    If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’ *
                    You
                    The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)
                    Me
                    You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
                    That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
                    You
                    “Debunked” by whom?
                    In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.
                    Me
                    You ask “Debunked” by whom? ”
                    Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
                    I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is bunk.
                    “In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have”
                    Wow so you already admit you can’t win this argument by going straight to insults. I can do that too – You are self centered egotistical self serving pseudo- moral totalitarian with about as much reason and forethought as a potato. Now if you are finished wasting time and showing you can’t argue with me can we move on or do you think you will give it a go.
                    ” when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue?”
                    When the parameters were defined and the questions answered; which I should point out had nothing to do with social contracts.
                    “You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.”
                    Well you might want to come up with something else because there is no such thing outside of your imagination.

                    EDIT: If I didn’t think it existed as a concept then how could I claim it was debunked?

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    11 May 2015 at 4:01 pm

                    “Yep, it’s relevant. You just don’t understand it.”

                    Ok let me take a page from your book.

                    No it is irrelevant, you just don’t understand why.

                • McFlock …
                  11 May 2015 at 4:27 pm

                  ooo, this is a good bit – OAB gave stuart an “out” by fixating on the word “customary” rather than the fact that the social contract is not a written (codified) document so much as an unwritten social rule (customary), so stuart ignored all the times from at least 4 may where OAB has explicitly argued that the social contract is unwritten.

                  Stuart takes that bait, but greedily also then argues that there can be no evidence for anything customary so therefore customs cannot be confirmed or disproved to exist… the libertarian overlord strikes again!!!

                  Oh, and all anthropologists and sociologists no longer have a job.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    11 May 2015 at 6:42 pm

                    “ooo, this is a good bit – OAB gave stuart an “out” by fixating on the word “customary” rather than the fact that the social contract is not a written (codified) document so much as an unwritten social rule (customary), so stuart ignored all the times from at least 4 may where OAB has explicitly argued that the social contract is unwritten.”

                    Incorrect; having a customary social contract is an attempted ‘fix’ for SCT arguments. It then has its own counterargument which shows a ‘customary’ contract isn’t a contract at all and so fails to delivery on ANYTHING meaningful other than being self-defeating. Please try to keep up.

                    “Stuart takes that bait, but greedily also then argues that there can be no evidence for anything customary”

                    Not at all, I argue that being ‘customary’ defeats the entire point of a social contract argument.

                    “so therefore customs cannot be confirmed or disproved to exist…”

                    That is just your misunderstanding of the tread so far.

                    “the libertarian overlord strikes again!!!”

                    Really? ‘Libertarian overlord’? Um that is a oxymoron and not the only one of its kind, with or without the prefix, on your side of the debate.

                    “Oh, and all anthropologists and sociologists no longer have a job.”

                    Good they really shouldn’t have jobs anyway…

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2015 at 8:06 pm

                      Incorrect; having a customary social contract is an attempted ‘fix’ for SCT arguments. It then has its own counterargument which shows a ‘customary’ contract isn’t a contract at all and so fails to delivery on ANYTHING meaningful other than being self-defeating. Please try to keep up.

                      If it were a “fix”, then the originators of SCT would have provided the precise text for the social contract. Nobody has ever argued the contract was written or codified.

                      And if you’d read the wikipedia article, you’d know that you’re once again confusing modern will-based theory of contracts rather than the largely consideration-based concept of contracts with implicit terms that were more common when SCT was first developed. That’s one of the bits you’d have to specifically address to avoid being a waste of space, rather than just yelling “WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE”.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    12 May 2015 at 5:13 pm

                    “If it were a “fix”, then the originators of SCT would have provided the precise text for the social contract. Nobody has ever argued the contract was written or codified.”

                    Are you serious? Did you really just write that? The ‘fix’ is in response to one of the objections to SCT and the ‘originators’ of SCT were too busy being dead to do anything about it.

                    “And if you’d read the wikipedia article, you’d know that you’re once again confusing modern will-based theory of contracts rather than the largely consideration-based concept of contracts with implicit terms that were more common when SCT was first developed.”

                    Did you read the objections to SCT I linked (several times I might add)?

                    I know all about the stupid twists and turns of implicit/tacit consent of theoretical contracts etc. These are what objections numbered 3. 4. and 5. on the page I liked previously deal with (also linked below)

                    http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                    “That’s one of the bits you’d have to specifically address to avoid being a waste of space, rather than just yelling “WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE”.”

                    1. In a debate/discussion you only need to deal with the arguments made by the other(s) people not those they should make.

                    2. OAB failed to make that, or any other, argument and as such I needed to do nothing at all to defeat him other than pointing out I gave no explicit consent and am still being governed. The simple fact he refused to deal with that objection at all meant he lost the argument about SCT legitimizing government.

                    3. That line of argument has already been dealt with (see above)

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

                      Are you serious? Did you really just write that? The ‘fix’ is in response to one of the objections to SCT and the ‘originators’ of SCT were too busy being dead to do anything about it.

                      So what precise text did Hobbes or Rousseau say that each person literally negotiated and agreed with their government? Links please. And I did say “literally”, as in signed their own personal copy of the social contract.

                      I know all about the stupid twists and turns of implicit/tacit consent of theoretical contracts etc. These are what objections numbered 3. 4. and 5. on the page I liked previously deal with (also linked below)

                      You know it all, eh?
                      let’s see:
                      3[…] maybe citizens consent to the social contract by voting?
                      Nope.
                      4[…]maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)
                      Nope.
                      5[…] maybe the social contract is entirely hypothetical
                      Nope. Still making the same litigiously-fixated error that you are.

                      2. OAB failed to make that, or any other, argument and as such I needed to do nothing at all to defeat him other than pointing out I gave no explicit consent and am still being governed. The simple fact he refused to deal with that objection at all meant he lost the argument about SCT legitimizing government.

                      OAB and others have actually repeatedly spelled it out in extra-tiny words, especially for you. You might have given no explicit consent, but that doesn’t get you out of the conundrum that if you genuinely do not wish to be a part of this society, you would fuck off, either overseas or into the bush. Frankly, when you achieve the perfect freedom you seek, I rate your survival odds as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    14 May 2015 at 8:48 pm

                    “Are you serious? Did you really just write that? The ‘fix’ is in response to one of the objections to SCT and the ‘originators’ of SCT were too busy being dead to do anything about it.

                    So what precise text did Hobbes or Rousseau say that each person literally negotiated and agreed with their government?”

                    The assumption of acceptance is also an objection to SCT
                    so you have done nothing but prove you don’t know the subject.

                    “Links please.”

                    Not my argument; this is something you have claimed is my argument and are demanding me to justify (this is called a ‘straw man’ argument)

                    “And I did say “literally”, as in signed their own personal copy of the social contract.”

                    Not relevant to my argument; you are the one that needs to show people accept a SC. The fact there are no signed copies just means you can’t claim explicit acceptance and as such shows that my statement that is no and never was a SC justified government in the world anywhere.

                    “I know all about the stupid twists and turns of implicit/tacit consent of theoretical contracts etc.”

                    Then you know they fail completely and given your failure to produce the signed contracts you need then you lose.

                    “These are what objections numbered 3. 4. and 5. on the page I liked previously deal with (also linked below)

                    You know it all, eh?”

                    I do not claim that; this is why I ask you to prove me wrong and to do that you need to defeat the objection(s) or show explicit acceptance.

                    let’s see:
                    3[…] maybe citizens consent to the social contract by voting?
                    Nope.
                    4[…]maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)
                    Nope.
                    5[…] maybe the social contract is entirely hypothetical
                    Nope. Still making the same litigiously-fixated error that you are.”

                    Claiming I am wrong and doing nothing just proves you can not even begin to show me wrong and are just lying so you can claim to keep your system.

                    “2. OAB failed to make that, or any other, argument and as such I needed to do nothing at all to defeat him other than pointing out I gave no explicit consent and am still being governed. The simple fact he refused to deal with that objection at all meant he lost the argument about SCT legitimizing government.

                    OAB and others have actually repeatedly spelled it out in extra-tiny words, especially for you. You might have given no explicit consent, but that doesn’t get you out of the conundrum that if you genuinely do not wish to be a part of this society, you would fuck off,”

                    Defeat objection 2 as that proves your alternatives are not rationally or morally acceptable and as can can be ignored. That means until you defeat objection 2. you are wrong on that count.

                    “either overseas or into the bush.”

                    Objection 2.

                    ” Frankly, when you achieve the perfect freedom you seek, I rate your survival odds as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

                    Based on? I thought so; like everything else from you it is based on nothing.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      14 May 2015 at 9:02 pm

                      I like how you keep standing on your religious soap box to preach dangerous dogmatic nonsense.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 May 2015 at 10:31 pm

                      So what precise text did Hobbes or Rousseau say that each person literally negotiated and agreed with their government?”

                      The assumption of acceptance is also an objection to SCT
                      so you have done nothing but prove you don’t know the subject.

                      No, focus, stewie. Your assertion is that arguments that social contracts are customary as opposed to formally written is a ‘fix’ improvised long after Hobbes, Rousseau etc were dead.
                      If you are correct in that assertion, all you need to do is cite the precise text that Hobbes or Rousseau said that each person literally negotiated and agreed with their government.
                      If a social contract is not customary, then it is codified and written. Or is this another case of you saying No but yeah but no…
                      [which addresses the next few paragraphs so I’ll cut them]

                      “I know all about the stupid twists and turns of implicit/tacit consent of theoretical contracts etc.”

                      Then you know they fail completely and given your failure to produce the signed contracts you need then you lose.

                      You really need to stop arguing with yourself.

                      “These are what objections numbered 3. 4. and 5. on the page I liked previously deal with (also linked below)

                      You know it all, eh?”

                      I do not claim that; this is why I ask you to prove me wrong and to do that you need to defeat the objection(s) or show explicit acceptance.

                      You just explicitly wrote that you knew all about it.

                      Claiming I am wrong and doing nothing just proves you can not even begin to show me wrong and are just lying so you can claim to keep your system.

                      you still don’t get that I’m simply copying your own style of argument?

                      There is nothing stopping you going into the bush other than your desire to enjoy the fruits of the society you’re moaning about. No more than the thousands of people who immigrate to and emigrate from NZ every year. You. Personally. Your objection 2 is bunk because you, personally, can go bush any time you feel too oppressed.

                      ” Frankly, when you achieve the perfect freedom you seek, I rate your survival odds as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

                      Based on? I thought so; like everything else from you it is based on nothing.

                      You reckon you could have a long, rewarding, socially-fulfilled life in the bush? Stop whinging and go.

        • McFlock 14.2.1.2
          9 May 2015 at 11:38 pm

          Stuart, you’re allowed to use quotation marks and hyperlinks to state your case. Just so we know which sentences in the 250-odd comments you might or might not have completely failed to understand.

          Firstly: you obviously have an issue with Wikipedia, but where have you provided an argument as to why the content of the wikipedia article is inaccurate? Your position seems to be based entirely on reverse appeal to authority.

          Secondly: your idea of “the social contract was in force” sort of misses the idea of the social contract, and indeed gives me the impression that you are viewing the term through a 20/21st century legal paradigm than the philosophical perspective that you’d have if you’d bothered to read and understand the wikipedia article.

          Thirdly: if your understanding of the political and philosophical term “social contract” is inconsistent with the conventional understanding of the term, you calling OAB a “liar” is a remarkably bold claim.

          the fact you are not on my side in this proves you are biased

          Gosh, yes, that’s some insightful “logic and reason” right there…. /sarc

          • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.1.2.1
            10 May 2015 at 8:24 am

            “Stuart, you’re allowed to use quotation marks and hyperlinks to state your case. Just so we know which sentences in the 250-odd comments you might or might not have completely failed to understand.”

            Then tell me the thread this is relating to; how can there be a different reading of it?

            “Firstly: you obviously have an issue with Wikipedia, but where have you provided an argument as to why the content of the wikipedia article is inaccurate? Your position seems to be based entirely on reverse appeal to authority.”

            Not at all it is on the basis that Wikipedia is written by the community and as such plagued by misconceptions and shoddy writing.

            “Secondly: your idea of “the social contract was in force” sort of misses the idea of the social contract, and indeed gives me the impression that you are viewing the term through a 20/21st century legal paradigm than the philosophical perspective that you’d have if you’d bothered to read and understand the wikipedia article.”

            No it does not and reading the thread shows that OAB held it as being relevant in substantiating his claims. If he meant it as being only a philosophical concept then it failed to qualify as substantiation. If it failed to be substantiation of his argument then that argument, without any other method of substantiation, must be considered false. So that gives us the situation as it stands; was OAB lying when he held it as substantiation or is he lying when he claims he never meant it as having any supporting role to the argument and thereby failed to answer my direct question while claiming he had with that post?

            Secondly how does it miss the point of social contract theory? It is held as “a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.” If it is not legally or morally binding then how can OAB claim it as the basis for legitimacy of government? How, given the context of this discussion, can I possibly be misinterpreting the ‘point’ of social contract theory?

            “Thirdly: if your understanding of the political and philosophical term “social contract” is inconsistent with the conventional understanding of the term, you calling OAB a “liar” is a remarkably bold claim.”

            We are discussing social contract theory in relation to how OAB used it in this thread not a scholarly discussion of it in general. The way OAB used it requires that it be in place and justifies government authority over the individual; that is the point of this whole discussion. If OAB had not claimed it substantiated his views then this whole thread would never have existed.

            ” the fact you are not on my side in this proves you are biased

            Gosh, yes, that’s some insightful “logic and reason” right there…. /sarc”

            Well the logic and reason are as follows.

            1. I asked OAB to substantiate his claims.

            2. OAB claimed that social contract theory did such

            3. I pointed out that social contract theory, in the sense he needed it to be interpreted as in order for it to qualify as the answer to my request for substantiation, was false and that no such thing actually existed.

            4. OAB claimed he did not post that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

            5. Claiming an answer to a request for substantiation that one readily admits is not intended to be substantiation is lying.

            Given the above 5 points there can be no way any rational unbiased person could disagree with my statement that OAB is a liar; hell I don’t even need point 3 at all

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.2.1.1
              10 May 2015 at 8:31 am

              Nope.

              1. You claimed the social contract does not exist.

              2. I demonstrated that it does.

              3. You conceded the point, then started inventing false narratives and claiming victory.

              Choke on it Stuey.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                10 May 2015 at 3:39 pm

                “Nope.

                1. You claimed the social contract does not exist.”

                The below section shows that your point 1. is a lie. You held social contract theory as a fact that disproved my argument.

                Me 1
                ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                You 1
                The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)

                2. I demonstrated that it does.

                No, not in the sense you needed to in order for social contract theory to be a valid response to my demand for evidence that my statements were incorrect. You ‘proved’ a point I already accepted by the fact I spoke of social contracts as shown in my direct response response to comment you 1. This means I knew the concept existed and accepted it existed by being able to talk about social contract theory and to inform you the theory was debunked.

                3. You conceded the point, then started inventing false narratives and claiming victory.

                You see how I proved your statements 1. and 2. incorrect and in so doing proved point 3. to be an irrelevancy and a half truth. that is what you need to do to the points I made. Failing to do so is what allows me to claim victory as that is how arguments work.

                1. I asked OAB to substantiate his claims.

                2. OAB claimed that social contract theory did such

                3. I pointed out that social contract theory, in the sense he needed it to be interpreted as in order for it to qualify as the answer to my request for substantiation, was false and that no such thing actually existed.

                4. OAB claimed he did not post that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                5. Claiming an answer to a request for substantiation that one readily admits is not intended to be substantiation is lying.

                6. Claiming one this is the case and then admitting it is not is a lie.

                Should add in number 6 to cover both eventualities I suppose

                “Choke on it Stuey.”

                How about I just chew the argument until it falls apart as I have done?

            • McFlock 14.2.1.2.1.2
              10 May 2015 at 3:48 pm

              Then tell me the thread this is relating to; how can there be a different reading of it?

              Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority.

              Not at all it is on the basis that Wikipedia is written by the community and as such plagued by misconceptions and shoddy writing.

              Lol. As a professor emeritus once said: “not the bits I wrote”.
              Seriously though, what precisely in the wikipedia article on SCT is incorrect? If there are misconceptions and shoddy writing in that article, suely you can point them out? That would really help you smote the big bad OAB and prove your natural genius.

              Secondly how does it miss the point of social contract theory? It is held as “a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.”

              good so far, until:

              If it is not legally or morally binding then how can OAB claim it as the basis for legitimacy of government?

              You fucking numpty, SCT isn’t about the imposition of rule, it’s about the consent of the ruled. Which you’d know if you’d understood the wikipedia article that you disagree with.

              We are discussing social contract theory in relation to how OAB used it in this thread not a scholarly discussion of it in general. The way OAB used it requires that it be in place and justifies government authority over the individual; that is the point of this whole discussion.

              Really? Because it seems to me that OAB used it in a fairly standard manner.
              Find the comment or comments that OAB used it. Right-click on the datestamp of his comment. Select “copy link to clipboard”. Paste that link into your own comment (we know you can do it).

              That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                11 May 2015 at 4:22 pm

                “Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority”

                Well that is dis-proven by the fact my posts do not fulfill the criteria for your statement to be correct. For one I don’t make economics based arguments. Secondly how have a ‘mangled’ social contract theory? Do I really need to go on? My first point proves the statement’s assumptions logically false.

                “Lol. As a professor emeritus once said: “not the bits I wrote”.
                Seriously though, what precisely in the wikipedia article on SCT is incorrect? If there are misconceptions and shoddy writing in that article, suely you can point them out? That would really help you smote the big bad OAB and prove your natural genius.”

                Who said I had an issue with the contents of that page? I only said I did not like Wikipedia as a source of referencing. That is a general statement about Wikipedia not a specific one about the page or its contents so I really fail to see the relevance of this question.

                “If it is not legally or morally binding then how can OAB claim it as the basis for legitimacy of government?
                You fucking numpty, SCT isn’t about the imposition of rule, it’s about the consent of the ruled. Which you’d know if you’d understood the wikipedia article that you disagree with.”

                WTF???? SCT addresses the questions of the LEGITIMACY of the AUTHORITY of the state over the INDIVIDUAL. That is precisely what it is.

                Hell here is a quote from that page

                “In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.”

                Looks like the page you claim disproves what I am saying actually agrees with me.

                ” We are discussing social contract theory in relation to how OAB used it in this thread not a scholarly discussion of it in general. The way OAB used it requires that it be in place and justifies government authority over the individual; that is the point of this whole discussion.
                Really? Because it seems to me that OAB used it in a fairly standard manner.”

                Really? Just like your point above, the one that contradicts itself, shows that I don’t understand the topic?

                “Find the comment or comments that OAB used it. Right-click on the datestamp of his comment. Select “copy link to clipboard”. Paste that link into your own comment (we know you can do it).”

                Don’t need to do anything as you proved your self wrong above…

                But having said that then reconcile the two criteria of OAB’s comments that I think are contradictory.

                1. OAB claimed that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                and

                2. OAB never claimed that social contract theory exists in a morally or legally binding manner.

                “That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.”

                Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.

                • McFlock …
                  11 May 2015 at 5:10 pm

                  “Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority”

                  Well that is dis-proven by the fact my posts do not fulfill the criteria for your statement to be correct. For one I don’t make economics based arguments.

                  I never said you did. I merely said that you argue like a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side. Among other things, fixating on an important word (“econ”) rather than the full paragraph, and then thinking themself to be a genius because of it.

                  Secondly how have a ‘mangled’ social contract theory?

                  Among other things, by fixating on whether it is written.

                  Do I really need to go on? My first point proves the statement’s assumptions logically false.

                  Oh, but please do. It’s been a while since we’ve had a possible Dunning-Kruger gold medallist here.

                  Who said I had an issue with the contents of that page? I only said I did not like Wikipedia as a source of referencing. That is a general statement about Wikipedia not a specific one about the page or its contents so I really fail to see the relevance of this question.

                  However, when your oft-repeated but sole response to a piece of evidence is that the source of the evidence is not credible, then that is a logical fallacy. If the wikipedia article is correct, then OAB is correct.

                  “If it is not legally or morally binding then how can OAB claim it as the basis for legitimacy of government?
                  You fucking numpty, SCT isn’t about the imposition of rule, it’s about the consent of the ruled. Which you’d know if you’d understood the wikipedia article that you disagree with.”

                  WTF???? SCT addresses the questions of the LEGITIMACY of the AUTHORITY of the state over the INDIVIDUAL. That is precisely what it is.

                  Hell here is a quote from that page

                  “In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.”

                  lol oh look, I have teh interwebz too: in the very next sentence it states Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. Damn, if only you’d read past the first sentence. But then I wouldn’t expect a first-year econ student to read an entire paragraph, either.

                  Looks like the page you claim disproves what I am saying actually agrees with me.

                  Only if you shut your eyes immediately after you see what you want to see.

                  Just like your point above, the one that contradicts itself, shows that I don’t understand the topic?

                  yup.

                  Don’t need to do anything as you proved your self wrong above…

                  [yawn] nope.

                  But having said that then reconcile the two criteria of OAB’s comments that I think are contradictory.

                  1. OAB claimed that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                  and

                  2. OAB never claimed that social contract theory exists in a morally or legally binding manner.

                  Maybe a social contract is socially binding? If you don’t like it: A) disobey; or B)fuck off. If enough people A or B, the government is altered to one that conforms to the contract.

                  “That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.”

                  Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.

                  The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker. as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says you’re a goatfucker. I don’t need to link to those comments, goatfucker, you need to explain why your statements to the effect that you are a goatfucker do not hold that you actually are a goatfucker.

                  See, I can be a logical libertarian superman, too, you goatfucker.
                  h/t OAB for the goatfucker gambit 🙂

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 May 2015 at 5:14 pm

                    😆

                    You’re welcome. I’m afraid the joke will be lost on Stuey.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2015 at 5:33 pm

                      I suspect he’ll accuse me of defamation and refuse to argue any further because I’m so vewy vewy wude. 🙂

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:17 pm

                      “You’re welcome. I’m afraid the joke will be lost on Stuey.”

                      Yes another totally irrelevant post and complete avoidance of the points I made. Pretty transparent OAB.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:26 pm

                      “1. OAB claimed that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                      This is yet another example of your slack-brained inattention: the closest I came to any such statement was when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue?”

                      Ok; let me get this straight; telling me that SCT is the fact that proved the legitimacy of government is not claiming that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual? Because that is exactly what it does by the meaning of the very definition of the words. (see below)

                      “Me
                      ‘Evidence of this please otherwise you are just saying “um is not”.
                      If there are facts that disprove what I am saying how about you show me them instead of claiming they exist and doing nothing else.’
                      You
                      The word “facts” in my comment is a link. Click on it for enlightenment. (Referencing the post: The problem here is that you, like Reddelusion (a climate denier) believe you’re entitled to your own facts.)”

                      “As McFlock has already attempted to educate you, it’s about the consent of the ruled. ”

                      And that is why my objection to that little nugget was that I have not given consent and am still being ruled by the government. You see if it is purely about the consent of the ruled in a true contract form then it must have offer acceptance and consideration. I do not remember any offer being made and I can clearly confirm I have not and do not accept.

                      But let me again reference the easily read page I found for you; specifically objection 1.

                      http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:45 pm

                      I have not given consent and am still being ruled by the government.

                      It’s free to live in the bush. You could wander into Fiordland and never be seen by a dagnabbit gummint man ever again. Not even a census taker.

                      Oh, you prefer to live in NZ society? Gosh, maybe there’s some sort of compromise involved in that, some sort of implicit quid pro quo, is one will, to enjoy the benefits of a social life. What could someone call that quid pro quo…

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      14 May 2015 at 8:55 pm

                      ” I have not given consent and am still being ruled by the government.

                      It’s free to live in the bush. You could wander into Fiordland and never be seen by a dagnabbit gummint man ever again. Not even a census taker.”

                      Objection 2. shows that argument is a non-starter. Also to make that the alternatives we need to already assume the legitimacy of the SC; so that makes your argument circular if you are using it to justify SCT.

                      “Oh, you prefer to live in NZ society?”

                      And why should that be the totality of my choices? An unjustified government or solitary wilderness survival? You have yet to justify the SC so leaving to avoid it is not required.

                      ” Gosh, maybe there’s some sort of compromise involved in that,”

                      Nope none needed as SC not yet justified by you.

                      “some sort of implicit quid pro quo, is one will, to enjoy the benefits of a social life. What could someone call that quid pro quo…”

                      Objection 4.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    11 May 2015 at 7:22 pm

                    You made a claim
                    “Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority”

                    By pointing out that you are not logically entitled to have made the assumptions you did I defeat that claim, unless you can counter argue it with that assumption gone. I gave you a very simple task of counter arguing by attacking the assumption that I am/was an econ student. This assumption is not even relevant to your statement and was offered as a kind of ‘self-selection litmus test’ to see if you recognized that; you did not.

                    ” Secondly how have a ‘mangled’ social contract theory?

                    Among other things, by fixating on whether it is written.”

                    No I did ask multiple times how that consent was given etc so I could make a counterargument to show that was not the case. This was the result of much avoidance and was the only way I could explicitly state the point so OAB might understand what I wanted. You really need to learn what role context plays…

                    Do I really need to go on? My first point proves the statement’s assumptions logically false.

                    “Oh, but please do. It’s been a while since we’ve had a possible Dunning-Kruger gold medallist here.”

                    Read above; all you needed to do with that was point out that assumption wasn’t really made… at all…

                    “Who said I had an issue with the contents of that page? I only said I did not like Wikipedia as a source of referencing. That is a general statement about Wikipedia not a specific one about the page or its contents so I really fail to see the relevance of this question.

                    However, when your oft-repeated but sole response to a piece of evidence is that the source of the evidence is not credible, then that is a logical fallacy. If the wikipedia article is correct, then OAB is correct.”

                    HAHAHAHA so if you reference ‘Phrenology’ in an argument about the validity of social contract theory I am right just because the reference I use is right about the definition of ‘Phrenology’. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

                    Just in-case you fail to understand the analogy: The article’s validity in it’s explanation of SCT is irrelevant if the SC does not have any moral or legal relevance; as this means it does not justify government authority over individuals.

                    “If it is not legally or morally binding then how can OAB claim it as the basis for legitimacy of government?
                    You fucking numpty, SCT isn’t about the imposition of rule, it’s about the consent of the ruled. Which you’d know if you’d understood the wikipedia article that you disagree with.”

                    WTF???? SCT addresses the questions of the LEGITIMACY of the AUTHORITY of the state over the INDIVIDUAL. That is precisely what it is.

                    Hell here is a quote from that page

                    “In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.”

                    lol oh look, I have teh interwebz too: in the very next sentence it states Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. Damn, if only you’d read past the first sentence. But then I wouldn’t expect a first-year econ student to read an entire paragraph, either.”

                    THANK YOU!!! THAT IS WHAT I WANTED OAB TO DO!!!!!!! I explained that explicit acceptance was out the window but he never took the bait like you did. I have posted it before so I suppose now is a fine point to post it again to show how tacit agreement fails

                    http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                    “Looks like the page you claim disproves what I am saying actually agrees with me.”

                    Not at all it just shows another reason why SCT is a non starter.

                    “Only if you shut your eyes immediately after you see what you want to see.”

                    Advice for yourself?

                    ” Just like your point above, the one that contradicts itself, shows that I don’t understand the topic?

                    yup.”

                    Read above and check out the link…

                    “Don’t need to do anything as you proved your self wrong above…

                    [yawn] nope.”

                    afraid so.

                    “But having said that then reconcile the two criteria of OAB’s comments that I think are contradictory.

                    1. OAB claimed that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                    and

                    2. OAB never claimed that social contract theory exists in a morally or legally binding manner.”

                    “Maybe a social contract is socially binding? If you don’t like it: A) disobey; or B)fuck off. If enough people A or B, the government is altered to one that conforms to the contract.”

                    This argument is explicitly defeated in the page linked below marked 2.

                    http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                    “That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.”

                    Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.

                    The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”

                    Nope it can’t prove your imagination.

                    “as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says you’re a goatfucker.”

                    Exactly; that would be you again.

                    “I don’t need to link to those comments, goatfucker, you need to explain why your statements to the effect that you are a goatfucker do not hold that you actually are a goatfucker.

                    See, I can be a logical libertarian superman, too, you goatfucker.
                    h/t OAB for the goatfucker gambit :)”

                    Wow irrational anger at having been proven wrong at every turn how surprising from someone of your beliefs… (sarcasm)

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 8:15 pm

                      1. OAB claimed that social contract theory substantiates the authority of government over the individual.

                      This is yet another example of your slack-brained inattention: the closest I came to any such statement was when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue?

                      As McFlock has already attempted to educate you, it’s about the consent of the ruled.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 May 2015 at 10:01 pm

                      You made a claim

                      “Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority”

                      By pointing out that you are not logically entitled to have made the assumptions you did I defeat that claim, unless you can counter argue it with that assumption gone. I gave you a very simple task of counter arguing by attacking the assumption that I am/was an econ student. This assumption is not even relevant to your statement and was offered as a kind of ‘self-selection litmus test’ to see if you recognized that; you did not.

                      You asked for an alternative reading of the thread so far. One such reading is that “a first-year econ student” yadda yadda yadda. Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point, as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms. This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people. Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year, your passion for markets (for example: “WHAT FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“)is reminiscent for econ or at least bcom students, but you have a nodding acquaitence with ideas you like so I threw in a pols paper. There was no assumption. Merely an implication that if you aren’t one, you still argue like one. If you hadn’t been so obsessed with validating your sense of superiority with ever-so-crafty tests, you might have picked it.

                      all you needed to do with that was point out that assumption wasn’t really made… at all…

                      It wouldn’t have needed pointing out if you were half the thinker you think you are.

                      However, when your oft-repeated but sole response to a piece of evidence is that the source of the evidence is not credible, then that is a logical fallacy. If the wikipedia article is correct, then OAB is correct.”

                      HAHAHAHA so if you reference ‘Phrenology’ in an argument about the validity of social contract theory I am right just because the reference I use is right about the definition of ‘Phrenology’. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

                      Only if phrenology is as relevant to a discussion on social contracts as social contracts are to a discussion on social contracts, and if an accurate article on the apparently-relevant phrenology doesn’t call it a pseudoscience and obsolete. So, nah – your maniacal laughter is unwarranted.

                      Just in-case you fail to understand the analogy: The article’s validity in it’s explanation of SCT is irrelevant if the SC does not have any moral or legal relevance; as this means it does not justify government authority over individuals.

                      So social contracts exist then. Took you long enough. You’re merely arguing whether they legitimise government. In other words, you’re arguing whether a government that governmens with the consent of the populace is a legitimate government.

                      THANK YOU!!! THAT IS WHAT I WANTED OAB TO DO!!!!!!! I explained that explicit acceptance was out the window but he never took the bait like you did. I have posted it before so I suppose now is a fine point to post it again to show how tacit agreement fails

                      Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid. The idiots like you I’ve encountered are rich and sociopathic enough to emigrate if they genunely wanted to not be governed by the NZ govt. Thousands emigrate every year. There are lawless parts of the planet, and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar, so the mafia-government example is stupid. Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc

                      ” Just like your point above, the one that contradicts itself, shows that I don’t understand the topic?

                      yup.”

                      Read above and check out the link…
                      Yeah, you still have basic comprehension problems.

                      “Maybe a social contract is socially binding? If you don’t like it: A) disobey; or B)fuck off. If enough people A or B, the government is altered to one that conforms to the contract.”

                      This argument is explicitly defeated in the page linked below marked 2.

                      Nope. See above.

                      “That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.”

                      Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.

                      The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”

                      Nope it can’t prove your imagination.

                      It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.

                      Wow irrational anger at having been proven wrong at every turn how surprising from someone of your beliefs… (sarcasm)

                      lol OAB knew you’d miss the point, goatfucker.

                    • Sans Cle …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:33 pm

                      At the peril of getting chastised for referring to higher authorities again, I want to say this to you McFlock.

                      AMEN

                    • The lost sheep …
                      12 May 2015 at 6:45 pm

                      Either Stuart is really enjoying having OAB / McFlock caught on the hook of their own righteousness, or, he doesn’t understand that once committed to an argument, they are pathologically incapable of walking away without having had the last word…..

                      Reminds me of the legendary Dr Seuss story of The Zax.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories
                      (Mind you, this whole blog could be read an an extension of that theme.)

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    12 May 2015 at 6:43 pm

                    “It’s all a question of persoective, OAB: we see little coffins, stewie sees objects that he can use as steps to financial wealth, so the more of them the better.”

                    That is argumentum ad misericordiam which means the argument is a non-starter.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 10:30 pm

                      No, it was an insult.
                      If you were a functioning human being, you’d have figured that out.

          • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.1.2.2
            12 May 2015 at 6:24 pm

            “You made a claim”

            I am sure I did at some point; please be more specific.

            “Well, an alternative reading of the 284 comments so far is that a first-year econ student with a pols paper on the side popped a fuse at a post on the wealth gap because it challenged his libertarian delusion. So he decided to argue into absurdity on GINI, debate compulsory vaccination and the “medical elites”, and mangle social contract theory. All while convinced of his natural superiority”

            By pointing out that you are not logically entitled to have made the assumptions you did I defeat that claim, unless you can counter argue it with that assumption gone. I gave you a very simple task of counter arguing by attacking the assumption that I am/was an econ student. This assumption is not even relevant to your statement and was offered as a kind of ‘self-selection litmus test’ to see if you recognized that; you did not.

            You asked for an alternative reading of the thread so far. One such reading is that “a first-year econ student” yadda yadda yadda.”

            I see my mistake; I thought it obvious that you would need to be making an alternate reading that disproved my points not just an alternate reading that is denied by the context of the discussion so far. I will endeavor to be more clear in future

            “Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point,”

            No it does not as I have objections that will prove it needs to be such in order to be Legally and/or morally binding. The fact that you fixate on this and ignore that I have given you access to these arguments just proves your desperation.

            “as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms.”

            So if I sell someone something I can then claim them as my slave because of the implicit term to be my slave? Or, even more relevant, can I claim they are my slave because of their implicit agreement to such by not moving out of my sight and the consideration of my not murdering them? Implicit agreement is not agreement at all. Full objections are 2. 3. 4. and 5.

            http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

            “This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people.”

            No it has been implied as being the case not actually stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird.

            “Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year,”

            I have shown the objections to such each and every time it was explicitly stated. This means, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement and, at worst, that statement is a deliberate attempt to slander my position (an insult and a lie).

            “your passion for markets (for example: “WHAT FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“)”

            Alternate reading to that would be someone with a passion for accuracy in the use of terms. As what Ropata was referring to failed to qualify as a free market given the definition of what a free market is; any person with a passion for truth could react in a similar way. So again, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement.

            “is reminiscent for econ or at least bcom students, but you have a nodding acquaitence with ideas you like so I threw in a pols paper. There was no assumption.”

            Proof there was and assumption given above and directly in your statement above.

            “Merely an implication that if you aren’t one, you still argue like one.”

            The assumption there is that such a person argues in a certain way. So…

            Assumption. Ding.

            “If you hadn’t been so obsessed with validating your sense of superiority with ever-so-crafty tests, you might have picked it.”

            Stated in my post you are responding to (see below)

            “all you needed to do with that was point out that assumption wasn’t really made… at all…”

            Bit late to do it now though.

            “It wouldn’t have needed pointing out if you were half the thinker you think you are.”

            It’s not about my thinking it is about yours.

            “However, when your oft-repeated but sole response to a piece of evidence is that the source of the evidence is not credible, then that is a logical fallacy. If the wikipedia article is correct, then OAB is correct.”

            HAHAHAHA so if you reference ‘Phrenology’ in an argument about the validity of social contract theory I am right just because the reference I use is right about the definition of ‘Phrenology’. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

            Only if phrenology is as relevant to a discussion on social contracts as social contracts are to a discussion on social contracts,”

            Incorrect. The article needs more than self consistency and relevance to the discussion in order to prove one correct (or incorrect) it also needs to be logically valid. The objections I had hoped to use (if OAB had actually tried to mount a defense) would have shown that to not be the case and so I must thank you for the opportunity to bring them forward.

            “and if an accurate article on the apparently-relevant phrenology doesn’t call it a pseudoscience and obsolete. So, nah – your maniacal laughter is unwarranted.”

            See above as that is one of the necessary and sufficient properties for it have the effect you claimed.

            “Just in-case you fail to understand the analogy: The article’s validity in it’s explanation of SCT is irrelevant if the SC does not have any moral or legal relevance; as this means it does not justify government authority over individuals.

            So social contracts exist then.”

            The concept does, that was how I managed to say they were debunked…

            “Took you long enough.”

            The limited and irrelevant sense of SCT you are using here is a direct corollary of my ability to discuss SCT and as such one is not rationally entitled to claim I denied that limited sense given the discussion.

            “You’re merely arguing whether they legitimise government. In other words, you’re arguing whether a government that governmens with the consent of the populace is a legitimate government.

            THANK YOU!!! THAT IS WHAT I WANTED OAB TO DO!!!!!!! I explained that explicit acceptance was out the window but he never took the bait like you did. I have posted it before so I suppose now is a fine point to post it again to show how tacit agreement fails

            Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid.”

            Then prove them wrong; fail to attempt and you are admitting you can’t disprove them as objections.

            “The idiots like you I’ve encountered are rich and sociopathic enough to emigrate if they genuinely wanted to not be governed by the NZ govt. Thousands emigrate every year. There are lawless parts of the planet,”

            No there are not; these places you call lawless are ruled by people claiming to be a government. Secondly why should I leave? You have yet to prove the authority to make my leaving a requirement of non-acceptance.

            I refer you to Objection 2. on that page you claim to be full of straw man arguments

            http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

            “and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar,”

            Again, why should I have to?

            ” so the mafia-government example is stupid.”

            And yet in the above you admit it would not eave me alone unless I hid. Why should I be forced to hide given you can not show the basis for legitimacy to make leaving/hiding the consequence of not accepting government.

            “Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

            It is a valid form of argument and it shows that both choices are poor therefore there is no real consent.

            ” Just like your point above, the one that contradicts itself, shows that I don’t understand the topic?

            yup.”

            Read above and check out the link…
            Yeah, you still have basic comprehension problems.

            “Maybe a social contract is socially binding? If you don’t like it: A) disobey; or B)fuck off. If enough people A or B, the government is altered to one that conforms to the contract.”

            This argument is explicitly defeated in the page linked below marked 2.

            Nope. See above.”

            I have and you are mistaken as by definition your example presupposes that the government should have authority, that disobedience will not be punished and that I can/should ‘fuck off’ if I don’t agree. That is the very definition of a shoddy argument.

            “That way, we can all click on it and see immediately that “gosh darn, OAB really is a damned liar” or “big surpruse, Stuart’s a fucking moron”. This is what we call “evidence” for your assertion.”

            Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.”

            No answer to this?

            “The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”

            Nope it can’t prove your imagination.”

            It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.”

            guess that is you admitting you can’t win this argument and hat I am right?

            “Wow irrational anger at having been proven wrong at every turn how surprising from someone of your beliefs… (sarcasm)

            lol OAB knew you’d miss the point, goatfucker.

            You are such a big man when anonymously at the keyboard of a computer; I wonder if you would dare say anything to me in person. My guess is you would not. And yes I do miss the point; I can not see how that whole sentence is of any relevance at all? When copy the other persons phrasing I at least tie it to the subject not turn it into blind abuse. So sue me I missed whatever irrational nonsense point you thought you made with the goatfucker crap.

            • McFlock 14.2.1.2.2.1
              12 May 2015 at 10:25 pm

              “You made a claim”

              I am sure I did at some point; please be more specific.

              Let us all bear this in mind as an example of stuart’s lack of comprehension: he’s started arguing with his own statements.

              You asked for an alternative reading of the thread so far. One such reading is that “a first-year econ student” yadda yadda yadda.”

              I see my mistake; I thought it obvious that you would need to be making an alternate reading that disproved my points not just an alternate reading that is denied by the context of the discussion so far. I will endeavor to be more clear in future

              Don’t be embarassed, stuart. Lots of freshers tie themselves in knots and start arguing against their own statements.

              “Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point,”

              No it does not as I have objections that will prove it needs to be such in order to be Legally and/or morally binding. The fact that you fixate on this and ignore that I have given you access to these arguments just proves your desperation.

              Your linked arguments prove no such thing, as shown repeatedly.

              “as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms.”

              So if I sell someone something I can then claim them as my slave because of the implicit term to be my slave? Or, even more relevant, can I claim they are my slave because of their implicit agreement to such by not moving out of my sight and the consideration of my not murdering them?

              No, those terms would be “hidden”, not “implicit”. Have you considered using a dictionary?

              “This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people.”

              No it has been implied as being the case not actually stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird.

              No, it’s been repeatedly stated in a variety of ways, and among other things it’s in the fucking wikipedia article that you obviously haven’t read.

              “Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year,”

              I have shown the objections to such each and every time it was explicitly stated. This means, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement and, at worst, that statement is a deliberate attempt to slander my position (an insult and a lie).

              So having just said that it has never actually been stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird, now you’ve shown the objections each and every time it has been explicity stated.
              You stupid fuck.

              passion for markets (for example: “WHAT FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“)”

              Alternate reading to that would be someone with a passion for accuracy in the use of terms.

              Not with that many exclamation marks, particularly as your passion for accuracy seems to be a bit unreliable.

              “Merely an implication that if you aren’t one, you still argue like one.”

              The assumption there is that such a person argues in a certain way. So…
              Assumption. Ding.

              That’s not an assumption. I know how fresher bcoms argue from direct experience. You argue like one. No assumption, just a statement of fact.

              [lots of ‘I know you are but what am I’ from stewie clipped]

              The article needs more than self consistency and relevance to the discussion in order to prove one correct (or incorrect) it also needs to be logically valid. The objections I had hoped to use (if OAB had actually tried to mount a defense) would have shown that to not be the case and so I must thank you for the opportunity to bring them forward.

              So now we’re back to no, you didn’t address the content of the article. No but yeah but no…

              Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid.”

              Then prove them wrong; fail to attempt and you are admitting you can’t disprove them as objections.

              Did elsewhere, but I’m intrigued that you don’t need to address the contents of the wikipedia article but we have to address the contents of your blogsite.

              “The idiots like you I’ve encountered are rich and sociopathic enough to emigrate if they genuinely wanted to not be governed by the NZ govt. Thousands emigrate every year. There are lawless parts of the planet,”

              No there are not; these places you call lawless are ruled by people claiming to be a government.

              Go hide in a place with no people then.

              Secondly why should I leave? You have yet to prove the authority to make my leaving a requirement of non-acceptance.

              You have a choice to leave. If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.

              I refer you to Objection 2. on that page you claim to be full of straw man arguments

              Given that you’ve just rehashed the points in it, see above.

              “and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar,”

              Again, why should I have to?

              To flee society. If you don’t wish to interact with society, would you have society move away from you?

              ” so the mafia-government example is stupid.”

              And yet in the above you admit it would not eave me alone unless I hid. Why should I be forced to hide given you can not show the basis for legitimacy to make leaving/hiding the consequence of not accepting government.

              You’re not forced. You have a choice. State of nature vs society.

              “Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

              See the bit about straw man.

              I have and you are mistaken as by definition your example presupposes that the government should have authority, that disobedience will not be punished and that I can/should ‘fuck off’ if I don’t agree. That is the very definition of a shoddy argument.

              SCT provides justifiication for the government (commonconsent of the society), that’s a possibility you take into account making that choice, and you can and should. Not shoddy at all. If you want to be an exception to the social contract, that’s you imposing your will on the rest of society. Which is the more justifiable position?

              Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.”

              No answer to this?

              Yes. Goatfucker.

              “The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”

              Nope it can’t prove your imagination.”

              It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.”

              guess that is you admitting you can’t win this argument and hat I am right?

              Nope. It’s a counterexample using your own methodology, goatfucker

              “Wow irrational anger at having been proven wrong at every turn how surprising from someone of your beliefs… (sarcasm)

              lol OAB knew you’d miss the point, goatfucker.

              You are such a big man when anonymously at the keyboard of a computer; I wonder if you would dare say anything to me in person. My guess is you would not. And yes I do miss the point; I can not see how that whole sentence is of any relevance at all? When copy the other persons phrasing I at least tie it to the subject not turn it into blind abuse. So sue me I missed whatever irrational nonsense point you thought you made with the goatfucker crap.

              Oh, I’ve called people goatfucker face to face life, too, goatfucker. It’s not my fault you said upthread that you fucked goats. It’s up to you to demonstrate that the comment where you said you fucked goats did not mean that you fucked goats. You probably confessed to goatfucking somewhere around the comments that you claim “shows OAB has done both of the two points above”.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                14 May 2015 at 9:30 pm

                “You made a claim
                I am sure I did at some point; please be more specific.
                Let us all bear this in mind as an example of stuart’s lack of comprehension: he’s started arguing with his own statements.”

                It was to point out your poor use of quotation marks but if you have no sense of humor we can do it that way too.

                “You asked for an alternative reading of the thread so far. One such reading is that “a first-year econ student” yadda yadda yadda.
                I see my mistake; I thought it obvious that you would need to be making an alternate reading that disproved my points not just an alternate reading that is denied by the context of the discussion so far. I will endeavor to be more clear in future
                Don’t be embarassed, stuart. Lots of freshers tie themselves in knots and start arguing against their own statements.”

                See above

                “Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point,”
                No it does not as I have objections that will prove it needs to be such in order to be Legally and/or morally binding. The fact that you fixate on this and ignore that I have given you access to these arguments just proves your desperation.”

                Your linked arguments prove no such thing, as shown repeatedly.

                All of the objections in this link

                http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                “as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms.”
                So if I sell someone something I can then claim them as my slave because of the implicit term to be my slave? Or, even more relevant, can I claim they are my slave because of their implicit agreement to such by not moving out of my sight and the consideration of my not murdering them?
                No, those terms would be “hidden”, not “implicit”. Have you considered using a dictionary?”

                Why? Were the people made aware of them? No? So they are considered to have accepted them without knowing what they accepted? I see no rational difference there in regards to my argument from analogy.

                “This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people.
                No it has been implied as being the case not actually stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird.
                No, it’s been repeatedly stated in a variety of ways, and among other things it’s in the fucking wikipedia article that you obviously haven’t read.”

                You really haven’t understood it have you?

                “Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year,”
                I have shown the objections to such each and every time it was explicitly stated. This means, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement and, at worst, that statement is a deliberate attempt to slander my position (an insult and a lie).
                So having just said that it has never actually been stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird, now you’ve shown the objections each and every time it has been explicity stated.
                You stupid fuck.”

                Try reading the thread you will see why you are talking about two different things. 1 the explicit demand for my arguments and 2 the explicit stating of your arguments. Please try to pay attention to how words work.

                ” passion for markets (for example: “WHAT FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“)”
                Alternate reading to that would be someone with a passion for accuracy in the use of terms.
                Not with that many exclamation marks, particularly as your passion for accuracy seems to be a bit unreliable.”

                Nope passion is passion and as you claimed this to be the result of some passion and so my contention stands.

                “Merely an implication that if you aren’t one, you still argue like one.
                The assumption there is that such a person argues in a certain way. So…
                Assumption. Ding.
                That’s not an assumption.”

                It is a claim about the world that must be tested empirically in order to be claimed true; have you done this? No, so…

                Assumption. Ding.

                ” I know how fresher bcoms argue from direct experience. You argue like one. No assumption, just a statement of fact.”

                So you did a study? No; then see above.

                ” The article needs more than self consistency and relevance to the discussion in order to prove one correct (or incorrect) it also needs to be logically valid. The objections I had hoped to use (if OAB had actually tried to mount a defense) would have shown that to not be the case and so I must thank you for the opportunity to bring them forward.
                So now we’re back to no, you didn’t address the content of the article. No but yeah but no…”

                No content to address it makes no claim of real world relevance just an explanation of SCT.

                “Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid.
                Then prove them wrong; fail to attempt and you are admitting you can’t disprove them as objections.
                Did elsewhere,”

                Nope you did not.

                “but I’m intrigued that you don’t need to address the contents of the wikipedia article but we have to address the contents of your blogsite.”

                That is the difference between objections to an argument and a page stating what a theory is.

                “The idiots like you I’ve encountered are rich and sociopathic enough to emigrate if they genuinely wanted to not be governed by the NZ govt. Thousands emigrate every year. There are lawless parts of the planet,”
                No there are not; these places you call lawless are ruled by people claiming to be a government.
                Go hide in a place with no people then.”

                Objection 2. proves this is not a viable argument for a SC justified government so the one you are trying to justify with SCT has no hope.

                “Secondly why should I leave? You have yet to prove the authority to make my leaving a requirement of non-acceptance.
                You have a choice to leave. If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.”

                Until you disprove Objection 2. then any claim like this is actually you saying ‘Stuart is right’

                “I refer you to Objection 2. on that page you claim to be full of straw man arguments
                Given that you’ve just rehashed the points in it, see above.”

                See no attempt at all to prove Objection 2. wrong? Yes I saw that.

                “and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar,”

                Again, why should I have to?

                To flee society. If you don’t wish to interact with society, would you have society move away from you?”

                Justify it first.

                ” so the mafia-government example is stupid.”
                And yet in the above you admit it would not eave me alone unless I hid. Why should I be forced to hide given you can not show the basis for legitimacy to make leaving/hiding the consequence of not accepting government.
                You’re not forced. You have a choice. State of nature vs society.”

                Not an exhaustive list of alternatives you have there.

                “Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc”
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
                See the bit about straw man.”

                Sorry denied by the definition of the two. Straw man arguments are unacceptable while Reducto ad Absurdum is acceptable.

                “SCT provides justifiication for the government (commonconsent of the society), that’s a possibility you take into account making that choice, and you can and should. Not shoddy at all.”

                It is if you do not claim explicit acceptance and fail to defeat one or more of the objections and pin acceptance on that.

                “If you want to be an exception to the social contract,”

                You have given up on explicit acceptance and the Objections given prevent all of your other attempts.

                “that’s you imposing your will on the rest of society. Which is the more justifiable position?”

                proven wrong by above

                “Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.”
                No answer to this?
                Yes. Goatfucker.”

                Wow so you admit you have nothing

                “The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”
                Nope it can’t prove your imagination.”
                It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.”
                guess that is you admitting you can’t win this argument and hat I am right?”
                Nope. It’s a counterexample using your own methodology, goatfucker”

                No I gave you objections you gave another claim so that makes you a liar again.

                “Wow irrational anger at having been proven wrong at every turn how surprising from someone of your beliefs… (sarcasm)
                lol OAB knew you’d miss the point, goatfucker.
                You are such a big man when anonymously at the keyboard of a computer; I wonder if you would dare say anything to me in person. My guess is you would not. And yes I do miss the point; I can not see how that whole sentence is of any relevance at all? When copy the other persons phrasing I at least tie it to the subject not turn it into blind abuse. So sue me I missed whatever irrational nonsense point you thought you made with the goatfucker crap.
                Oh, I’ve called people goatfucker face to face life, too, goatfucker.”

                $100 says you would not with me.

                “It’s not my fault you said upthread that you fucked goats.”

                Well so far the only one claiming any goatfucking was you.

                “It’s up to you to demonstrate that the comment where you said you fucked goats did not mean that you fucked goats. You probably confessed to goatfucking somewhere around the comments that you claim “shows OAB has done both of the two points above”.”

                Admission I won, thank you.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  14 May 2015 at 9:42 pm

                  To be clear, to get the $100 McFlock has to call you a goatfucker to your face, and you’ll still have less than no clue why.

                  Too funny, goatfucker.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    16 May 2015 at 3:09 pm

                    “To be clear, to get the $100 McFlock has to call you a goatfucker to your face, and you’ll still have less than no clue why.”

                    Yes that is all he needs to do; the why would be because that is the bet but you are obviously too stupid to understand that.

                    Before you say something very stupid about my response above look up scopal ambiguity.

                    “Too funny, goatfucker.”

                    Well if you are the one that thinks it is funny I am sure it is based on either a lie or a misunderstanding that a person with an I.Q. high enough to breathe unaided would not have had.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 May 2015 at 5:43 pm

                      Before you make yet another flatulent pwned argument, have you grasped that SC is a model yet?

                • McFlock …
                  15 May 2015 at 12:06 am

                  “You made a claim
                  I am sure I did at some point; please be more specific.
                  Let us all bear this in mind as an example of stuart’s lack of comprehension: he’s started arguing with his own statements.”

                  It was to point out your poor use of quotation marks but if you have no sense of humor we can do it that way too.

                  Plank. Eye. Own.
                  Oh, and try to get the hang of basic tags such as blockquote. It’s in the faq.

                  […]

                  Your linked arguments prove no such thing, as shown repeatedly.

                  All of the objections in this link

                  http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                  … have been debunked, thin as they were.

                  “as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms.”

                  So if I sell someone something I can then claim them as my slave because of the implicit term to be my slave? Or, even more relevant, can I claim they are my slave because of their implicit agreement to such by not moving out of my sight and the consideration of my not murdering them?

                  No, those terms would be “hidden”, not “implicit”. Have you considered using a dictionary?”

                  Why? Were the people made aware of them? No? So they are considered to have accepted them without knowing what they accepted? I see no rational difference there in regards to my argument from analogy.

                  Online definitions of each word from my nearest search engine:
                  “implicit: Implied or understood though not directly expressed”
                  “hidden: concealed; obscure; covert”
                  To a person with no social ability whatsoever “implicit” might be functionally the same as “hidden”, but that would likely also remove your objection 2 as they would have no strong social ties to stop them going bush for free.

                  “This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people.

                  No it has been implied as being the case not actually stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird.

                  No, it’s been repeatedly stated in a variety of ways, and among other things it’s in the fucking wikipedia article that you obviously haven’t read.”

                  You really haven’t understood it have you?

                  Ah. I know you are but what am I. Well played, sir /sarc

                  “Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year,”

                  I have shown the objections to such each and every time it was explicitly stated. This means, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement and, at worst, that statement is a deliberate attempt to slander my position (an insult and a lie).

                  So having just said that it has never actually been stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird, now you’ve shown the objections each and every time it has been explicity stated.
                  You stupid fuck.”

                  Try reading the thread you will see why you are talking about two different things. 1 the explicit demand for my arguments and 2 the explicit stating of your arguments. Please try to pay attention to how words work.

                  OK, there’s the paragraph:
                  ” Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point, as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms. This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people. Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year, [and so on]”
                  One subject: your inability to grasp a basic point.

                  Nope passion is passion and as you claimed this to be the result of some passion and so my contention stands.

                  lol if you were passionate about accuracy then your accuracy about the subject of two sentences wouldn’t be so far off.

                  It is a claim about the world that must be tested empirically in order to be claimed true; have you done this? No, so…

                  Assumption. Ding.

                  Really? “No”? So you know I haven’t dealt with literally thousands of tertiary students at all levels of their progression over the last couple of decades in a number of roles? No? You’re the one doing the assuming, dong.

                  ” I know how fresher bcoms argue from direct experience. You argue like one. No assumption, just a statement of fact.”

                  So you did a study? No; then see above.

                  lol. Actually, I was involved in that sort of thing for a time. One chap even used the research data for a phd.

                  ” The article needs more than self consistency and relevance to the discussion in order to prove one correct (or incorrect) it also needs to be logically valid. The objections I had hoped to use (if OAB had actually tried to mount a defense) would have shown that to not be the case and so I must thank you for the opportunity to bring them forward.

                  So now we’re back to no, you didn’t address the content of the article. No but yeah but no…”

                  No content to address it makes no claim of real world relevance just an explanation of SCT.

                  So you’re settling on “no”? Super sure? No but yeah but no, definitely no?

                  “Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid.

                  Then prove them wrong; fail to attempt and you are admitting you can’t disprove them as objections.

                  Did elsewhere,”

                  Nope you did not.

                  Told you to go to fiordland. Only one needs to fail because it’s nested conditionals. The one I chose was objection two. It’s free, the demands aren’t anything that people don’t choose thousands of times a year, so no objection.

                  “but I’m intrigued that you don’t need to address the contents of the wikipedia article but we have to address the contents of your blogsite.”

                  That is the difference between objections to an argument and a page stating what a theory is.

                  Um do know there are arguments on the wikipedia page?

                  Go hide in a place with no people then.”

                  Objection 2. proves this is not a viable argument for a SC justified government so the one you are trying to justify with SCT has no hope.

                  It’s perfectly viable. Nobody would find you in fiordland even if they knew to look for you, the costs are negligible, and you’re not being asked to do anything that thousands of people a year do. And you’ve stated that you think I have no grounds for believing that such a life for you would be solitary, poor nasty brutish and short, so you should do fine…

                  “Secondly why should I leave? You have yet to prove the authority to make my leaving a requirement of non-acceptance.
                  You have a choice to leave. If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.”

                  Until you disprove Objection 2. then any claim like this is actually you saying ‘Stuart is right’

                  All sentence like that are you saying “stewie can’t read”.

                  “I refer you to Objection 2. on that page you claim to be full of straw man arguments
                  Given that you’ve just rehashed the points in it, see above.”

                  See no attempt at all to prove Objection 2. wrong? Yes I saw that.

                  “You have a choice to leave. If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.”
                  You missed that.

                  “and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar,”

                  Again, why should I have to?

                  To flee society. If you don’t wish to interact with society, would you have society move away from you?”

                  Justify it first.

                  What, leaving society because you choose to not live under the rules the rest of society accepts? You want to dictate your rules on the rest of society, even if they don’t want to live with people who don’t follow the same rules they do?

                  ” so the mafia-government example is stupid.”

                  And yet in the above you admit it would not eave me alone unless I hid. Why should I be forced to hide given you can not show the basis for legitimacy to make leaving/hiding the consequence of not accepting government.

                  You’re not forced. You have a choice. State of nature vs society.”

                  Not an exhaustive list of alternatives you have there.

                  Well, there’s always “become a dictator and force the rest of society to follow your list of rules under threat of massacres”, but I figured that your love of human rights would prohibit it as an option.

                  “Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc”

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

                  See the bit about straw man.”

                  Sorry denied by the definition of the two. Straw man arguments are unacceptable while Reducto ad Absurdum is acceptable.

                  From the trolley problem: “If I offer you a choice between torture or death, can you be said to have consented to torture? ”
                  Does that argument actually apply to the voting choice in NZ, especially when emigration and going bush are so easy? Nope. Straw man, then, according to your wikipedia link.

                  “SCT provides justifiication for the government (commonconsent of the society), that’s a possibility you take into account making that choice, and you can and should. Not shoddy at all.”

                  It is if you do not claim explicit acceptance and fail to defeat one or more of the objections and pin acceptance on that.

                  Nope and done, respectively.

                  “If you want to be an exception to the social contract,”

                  You have given up on explicit acceptance and the Objections given prevent all of your other attempts.

                  Where did anyone argue in favour of explicit acceptance? That’s hand in glove with codification, so can’t be done if it’s merely customary. And your objections really don’t deserve capitalisation, for reasons discussed elsewhere, ad nauseum.

                  “that’s you imposing your will on the rest of society. Which is the more justifiable position?”

                  proven wrong by above

                  Oh no you didn’t, mr punch…

                  “Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.”

                  No answer to this?

                  Yes. Goatfucker.”

                  Wow so you admit you have nothing

                  Learn to read.

                  “The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”

                  Nope it can’t prove your imagination.”

                  It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.”

                  guess that is you admitting you can’t win this argument and hat I am right?”

                  Nope. It’s a counterexample using your own methodology, goatfucker”

                  No I gave you objections you gave another claim so that makes you a liar again.

                  Still fucking those goats, eh?

                  Oh, I’ve called people goatfucker face to face life, too, goatfucker.”

                  $100 says you would not with me.

                  $100?
                  Make it a million and I’d call Andrew Little a goatfucker. BTW you finance all the sundry costs like travel as well. I turn up to a lawyers’ office in Dunedin, call you a goatfucker, the impartial party puts a million in my bank account, done. Ten minutes, tops. Hell, you’ve probably fucked goats in less time than that.

                  “It’s not my fault you said upthread that you fucked goats.”

                  Well so far the only one claiming any goatfucking was you.

                  Nah you said it upthread.

                  “It’s up to you to demonstrate that the comment where you said you fucked goats did not mean that you fucked goats. You probably confessed to goatfucking somewhere around the comments that you claim “shows OAB has done both of the two points above”.”

                  Admission I won, thank you.

                  You need to learn to read, goatfucker.
                  BTW, you might also want to look up pwnd arguments in the site policy.

                  [lprent: hey he might be fast enough to fuck goats, but only if those arsehole animals have an electric fence around them. Otherwise the only thing they respect is a 0.223 magnum.

                  But with electric fences I can get those arsehole animals to eat GORSE! But why do you have to educate this goatfucker where we have to read it…

                  Find a room…

                  And no, I ban anyone using pwned or owned arguments as being unable to sustain an argument here. If this actoid animal abuser has been doing that and I see it, then I will give him a 240 volt restriction. ]

                  • McFlock …
                    15 May 2015 at 11:00 am

                    Should I take that “find a room” as a moderator calling “time” on the argument?

                    All good, it was fun while it lasted.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 May 2015 at 5:32 pm

                      Wasn’t going to respond as there was nothing new and it’s getting boring, but I realised that the following might go some way to explaining some of your stupidity:

                      There are no quotation marks or special formatting of ANY kind on your posts.

                      If the instances in this comment where I have used the word “some” are not italicised, or the above sentence (immediately following the colon) is not indented with large quotation marks to the left, you need to upgrade your browser to something that’s compatible with basic html. Because the formatting works fine on every damned browser I’ve used. Goatfucker.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    16 May 2015 at 4:26 pm

                    “You made a claim
                    I am sure I did at some point; please be more specific.
                    Let us all bear this in mind as an example of stuart’s lack of comprehension: he’s started arguing with his own statements.”
                    It was to point out your poor use of quotation marks but if you have no sense of humor we can do it that way too.
                    Plank. Eye. Own.
                    Oh, and try to get the hang of basic tags such as blockquote. It’s in the faq.”

                    There are no quotation marks or special formatting of ANY kind on your posts. So how about you do something about that…

                    “Your linked arguments prove no such thing, as shown repeatedly.
                    All of the objections in this link
                    http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html
                    … have been debunked, thin as they were.”

                    Where and how? Becuase you are a fucking liar.

                    “as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and axchange of considerations and implicit terms.”
                    So if I sell someone something I can then claim them as my slave because of the implicit term to be my slave? Or, even more relevant, can I claim they are my slave because of their implicit agreement to such by not moving out of my sight and the consideration of my not murdering them?
                    No, those terms would be “hidden”, not “implicit”. Have you considered using a dictionary?”
                    Why? Were the people made aware of them? No? So they are considered to have accepted them without knowing what they accepted? I see no rational difference there in regards to my argument from analogy.
                    Online definitions of each word from my nearest search engine:
                    “implicit: Implied or understood though not directly expressed”

                    Denied by your inability to tell me what the terms are and to even deny that such could be done. You see what I did there? I asked a question you thought you could answer and then used your previous statements to make you prove yourself wrong.

                    “hidden: concealed; obscure; covert”
                    To a person with no social ability whatsoever “implicit” might be functionally the same as “hidden”, but that would likely also remove your objection 2 as they would have no strong social ties to stop them going bush for free.”

                    Proof positive you have no idea how the objections work. Thanks for proving I need do nothing else to win this argument.

                    “This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people.
                    No it has been implied as being the case not actually stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird.
                    No, it’s been repeatedly stated in a variety of ways, and among other things it’s in the fucking wikipedia article that you obviously haven’t read.”
                    You really haven’t understood it have you?
                    Ah. I know you are but what am I. Well played, sir /sarc”

                    So how have they stated this? By claiming it is customary? What method of acceptance to make SC binding is that? Tacit/implied… explict…? What? It is meaningless and that is why I ask over and over for people to tell me how they think it has been accepted!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    “Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year,”
                    I have shown the objections to such each and every time it was explicitly stated. This means, at best, you are not logically entitled to make that statement and, at worst, that statement is a deliberate attempt to slander my position (an insult and a lie).
                    So having just said that it has never actually been stated and as such giving an objection to it would just be weird, now you’ve shown the objections each and every time it has been explicity stated.
                    You stupid fuck.”
                    Try reading the thread you will see why you are talking about two different things. 1 the explicit demand for my arguments and 2 the explicit stating of your arguments. Please try to pay attention to how words work.”

                    OK, there’s the paragraph:
                    ” Your fixation of whether it was written (for example:I ask questions so I can point out that if it isn’t a written or even verbal agreement then it has NO LEGAL OR MORAL BINDING! )or otherwise codified misses the point, as it is based around a contract that consists of explicit terms rather than and exchange of considerations and implicit terms. This has been explained to you repeatedly in a number of different ways by different people. Your failure to grasp this is similar to that of a dense first-year, [and so on]”
                    One subject: your inability to grasp a basic point.”

                    Um read the sentence the distinction is

                    1. explicit stating of SC foundation has not been made

                    2. explicit requests for my reasoning have been made.

                    TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    “Nope passion is passion and as you claimed this to be the result of some passion and so my contention stands.
                    lol if you were passionate about accuracy then your accuracy about the subject of two sentences wouldn’t be so far off.”

                    Only when given without context and put in a totally different thread of argument.

                    “It is a claim about the world that must be tested empirically in order to be claimed true; have you done this? No, so…
                    Assumption. Ding.
                    Really?”

                    Yes Really.

                    “No”?”

                    Yes? Maybe? No? Yes? Possibly? Yes?

                    “So you know I haven’t dealt with literally thousands of tertiary students at all levels of their progression over the last couple of decades in a number of roles?”

                    So not a rigorous sampling method and study then? No? Thought so.

                    “No? You’re the one doing the assuming, dong.”

                    Nope as that does not count as a statistically relevant survey and I asked the question knowing with certainty you had not done so.

                    ” I know how fresher bcoms argue from direct experience. You argue like one. No assumption, just a statement of fact.”

                    So you did a study? No; then see above.

                    “lol. Actually, I was involved in that sort of thing for a time. One chap even used the research data for a phd.”

                    Really; can we have the study?

                    ”The article needs more than self consistency and relevance to the discussion in order to prove one correct (or incorrect) it also needs to be logically valid. The objections I had hoped to use (if OAB had actually tried to mount a defense) would have shown that to not be the case and so I must thank you for the opportunity to bring them forward.
                    So now we’re back to no, you didn’t address the content of the article. No but yeah but no…”
                    No content to address it makes no claim of real world relevance just an explanation of SCT.”
                    So you’re settling on “no”? Super sure? No but yeah but no, definitely no?”

                    Conditional exemptions in a sentence still go over your head.

                    “Yeah, nah. The straw men in that link are pretty stupid.
                    Then prove them wrong; fail to attempt and you are admitting you Did elsewhere,”
                    Nope you did not.”

                    “Told you to go to fiordland.”

                    Objection 2 means that is not a valid point at all. YOU LOSE!

                    “Only one needs to fail because it’s nested conditionals. The one I chose was objection two. It’s free, the demands aren’t anything that people don’t choose thousands of times a year, so no objection.”

                    1. Still in the country (This is effectively you saying I can just ignore the government and continue to live in the country and simply avoid it so why can’t I just do that from the comfort of my own home?)

                    2. I have to forgo many things which are not part of your government. Like interaction with other people along voluntary lines, my wife, my family and the mother that the objection explicitly mentions.

                    Fuck it I am bored of this and the 2 above show you haven’t got a clue how to defeat an objection. YOU LOSE AGAIN!

                    “but I’m intrigued that you don’t need to address the contents of the wikipedia article but we have to address the contents of your blogsite.”
                    That is the difference between objections to an argument and a page stating what a theory is.
                    Um do know there are arguments on the wikipedia page?”

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

                    No it does not; it just has descriptions of methods of argument NO ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!. So that would mena YOU LOSE AGAIN!

                    “Go hide in a place with no people then.”
                    Objection 2. proves this is not a viable argument for a SC justified government so the one you are trying to justify with SCT has no hope.”
                    It’s perfectly viable.”

                    No until you overturn objection 2.
                    THAT IS IT YOU ARE A WASTE OF TIME. You have lost; end of story. All this is doing is proving you are irrational and as such arguing with you is a waste of time and continuation past this point would prove I am irrational for the attempt

                    “Nobody would find you in fiordland even if they knew to look for you”

                    Still in the country so not an argument to go somewhere else at all; just an argument to ignore the government and fly under the radar. This alone proves your counter-objection wrong and means YOU LOSE!

                    “the costs are negligible,”

                    Claiming they are does not make it so. The costs would be everything I own and everyone I know; and that means you are a either retarded or a liar to think that is the case.

                    “and you’re not being asked to do anything that thousands of people a year do.”

                    1. Is does not imply ought. This makes the above irrelevant and means YOU LOSE!

                    2. You have assumed that government has authority in order for this to be the choice. If it has authority Objection 2. holds and shows that is not acceptable as the choice. In other words you haven’t proven the government justified in making that the choice and even if you do you are still not justified… This means you LOSE AND COULD NEVER EVER WIN!

                    “And you’ve stated that you think I have no grounds for believing that such a life for you would be solitary, poor nasty brutish and short, so you should do fine…”

                    The choice is not between the alternatives you dictate; you want that to be the alternatives then this discussion is over and you, of course, have lost. The alternative is the abolition of this government and the institution of one tat can be justified without SCT not moving to Fiordland.

                    “Secondly why should I leave? You have yet to prove the authority to make my leaving a requirement of non-acceptance.
                    You have a choice to leave. If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.”
                    Until you disprove Objection 2. then any claim like this is actually you saying ‘Stuart is right’
                    All sentence like that are you saying “stewie can’t read”.

                    Are you stupid or just acting it? objection 2. still stands and it is an objection against that line of argument for a FULLY JUSTIFIED SC GOVERNMENT!!!

                    “I refer you to Objection 2. on that page you claim to be full of straw man arguments
                    Given that you’ve just rehashed the points in it, see above.”
                    See no attempt at all to prove Objection 2. wrong? Yes I saw that.
                    “You have a choice to leave.”

                    Denied as a justifiable choice by Objection 2. Therefore you can’t keep stating it, You need to actually have an argument against Objection 2.

                    “If you choose to remain part of the society, that’s your choice.”
                    You missed that.”

                    No you must have missed Objection 2.

                    “and even places in NZ where people can live under the radar,”
                    Again, why should I have to?
                    To flee society.”

                    A societal structure you have failed to justify? Again I ask; why should I have to?

                    “If you don’t wish to interact with society, would you have society move away from you?”
                    Justify it first.
                    What, leaving society because you choose to not live under the rules the rest of society accepts?”

                    1. Already proven that people don’t. The Objections to implicit/tacit acceptance are shown in the page I linked and you have done nothing to disprove ANY of them and readily admit no explicit acceptance has been given.
                    2. The system I propose allows you to have your system operating within it and as such gives the people you claim are losing something the option to have the exact social structure they have now but with just those who ACTUALLY agree with it.

                    So end of discussion you lose!

                    “You want to dictate your rules on the rest of society,”

                    Nope I want them to decide for themselves what they want and not have unchosen obligations foisted upon them. But thanks for trying the straw man argument there.

                    “even if they don’t want to live with people who don’t follow the same rules they do?”

                    Objection 2 shows they do not have the right.

                    ” so the mafia-government example is stupid.”
                    And yet in the above you admit it would not eave me alone unless I hid. Why should I be forced to hide given you can not show the basis for legitimacy to make leaving/hiding the consequence of not accepting government.
                    You’re not forced. You have a choice. State of nature vs society.”

                    What about a government not justified by SC? the simple fact that that IS actually a viable alternative proves your whole argument wrong. So END OF DISCUSSION; I WIN!!!

                    “Not an exhaustive list of alternatives you have there.
                    Well, there’s always “become a dictator and force the rest of society to follow your list of rules under threat of massacres”, but I figured that your love of human rights would prohibit it as an option.”

                    Or institute a Anarchic-Libertarian system and allow people who want a SC dictated government to explicitly join it etc. Point proven through third option therefore you are wrong.

                    “Voting between torture and death? Yeah, that’s not bullshit at all /sarc”
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
                    See the bit about straw man.”
                    Sorry denied by the definition of the two. Straw man arguments are unacceptable while Reducto ad Absurdum is acceptable.
                    From the trolley problem: “If I offer you a choice between torture or death, can you be said to have consented to torture? ”
                    Does that argument actually apply to the voting choice in NZ,”

                    Yes; it shows that by only allowing the two options (Government or ‘The State Of Nature’) you can not be said to have consented to the SC.

                    “especially when emigration and going bush are so easy?”

                    You have assumed that government has authority in order for this to be the choice. If it has authority Objection 2. holds and shows that is not acceptable as the choice. In other words you haven’t proven the government justified in making that the choice and even if you do you are still not justified… This means you LOSE AND COULD NEVER EVER WIN!

                    1. Already proven that people don’t give tacit/implicit acceptance. The Objections to implicit/tacit acceptance are shown in the page I linked and you have done nothing to disprove ANY of them and readily admit no explicit acceptance has been given.
                    2. The system I propose allows you to have your system operating within it and as such gives the people you claim are losing something the option to have the exact social structure they have now but with just those who ACTUALLY agree with it.

                    “Nope. Straw man, then, according to your wikipedia link.
                    “SCT provides justifiication for the government (commonconsent of the society), that’s a possibility you take into account making that choice, and you can and should. Not shoddy at all.”
                    It is if you do not claim explicit acceptance and fail to defeat one or more of the objections and pin acceptance on that.”
                    Nope and done, respectively.”

                    Oh no you didn’t, mr punch…
                    Not according to reason, logic, and reality anyway

                    “If you want to be an exception to the social contract,”
                    You have given up on explicit acceptance and the Objections given prevent all of your other attempts.
                    Where did anyone argue in favour of explicit acceptance?”

                    I never said you did? I said you gave up on it from the start; try to lean what words mean.

                    “That’s hand in glove with codification, so can’t be done if it’s merely customary. And your objections really don’t deserve capitalisation, for reasons discussed elsewhere, ad nauseum.”

                    SEE ABOVE

                    “that’s you imposing your will on the rest of society. Which is the more justifiable position?”
                    proven wrong by above
                    Oh no you didn’t, mr punch…”

                    Yeah I did see above

                    “Sorry that burden of proof is on you as the thread shows OAB has done both of the two points above; as such the burden of proof is on the side of the argument that says one or both of those points are false. you need to explain why his statements do not hold either or both of those things.”
                    No answer to this?
                    Yes. Goatfucker.”
                    Wow so you admit you have nothing
                    Learn to read.”

                    Already can as proven by my destruction of your arguments.

                    “The thread shows that you also fucked your pet goat, you horrible goatfucker.”
                    Nope it can’t prove your imagination.”
                    It can’t prove yours, either. So link or prove you’re not a goatfucker, goatfucker.”
                    guess that is you admitting you can’t win this argument and hat I am right?”
                    Nope. It’s a counterexample using your own methodology, goatfucker”
                    No I gave you objections you gave another claim so that makes you a liar again.
                    Still fucking those goats, eh?”

                    Well can’t still be doing something that you have never done; so I will leave that to you

                    “Oh, I’ve called people goatfucker face to face life, too, goatfucker.”
                    $100 says you would not with me.
                    $100?”

                    Yes

                    “Make it a million and I’d call Andrew Little a goatfucker.”

                    Who is Andrew

                    “BTW you finance all the sundry costs like travel as well. I turn up to a lawyers’ office in Dunedin, call you a goatfucker, the impartial party puts a million in my bank account, done. Ten minutes, tops. Hell, you’ve probably fucked goats in less time than that.”
                    “It’s not my fault you said upthread that you fucked goats.”
                    Well so far the only one claiming any goatfucking was you.”
                    Nah you said it upthread.”

                    Thanks for admitting you are worong

                    “It’s up to you to demonstrate that the comment where you said you fucked goats did not mean that you fucked goats. You probably confessed to goatfucking somewhere around the comments that you claim “shows OAB has done both of the two points above”.”
                    Admission I won, thank you.
                    You need to learn to read, goatfucker.”

                    Sorry I have no desire to learn your language

                    “BTW, you might also want to look up pwnd arguments in the site policy.”
                    [lprent: hey he might be fast enough to fuck goats, but only if those arsehole animals have an electric fence around them. Otherwise the only thing they respect is a 0.223 magnum.
                    But with electric fences I can get those arsehole animals to eat GORSE! But why do you have to educate this goatfucker where we have to read it…
                    Find a room…
                    And no, I ban anyone using pwned or owned arguments as being unable to sustain an argument here. If this actoid animal abuser has been doing that and I see it, then I will give him a 240 volt restriction. ]”

                    WTF?

      • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.2
        15 May 2015 at 5:29 pm

        “What inaccuracies or misconceptions are there in the wikipedia article on social contract theory?”

        The misconception is yours; you seem to think it is justification for government and not just some pointless concept with no application to the real world.

        “If the NZ government doesn’t have your consent, why aren’t you overseas? ”

        http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

        See all of the objections listed there

        “Are you imprisoned here?”

        No, are you?

        • McFlock 14.2.2.1
          15 May 2015 at 5:42 pm

          Everything in your comment has already been covered.

          Given that the boldface script has appeared, I suggest for your consideration that it might be an implicit indication that we are beginning to bore a moderator.

          If you wish to pay me a million dollars to call you a goatfucker to your face, we can hash out the specific terms of the exchange on open mike. But unless we get an explicit “pray continue” (and not an implicit “prey, continue”), it might be good idea to call it a day.

          [lprent: Boring a moderator is possibly THE cardinal sin on a blog. But in long tedious conversations like this way back in the stack of posts, it usually means that a moderator is detecting a circular discussion that people should start agreeing to disagree on, or where a particular behaviour needs a warning. ]

          • McFlock 14.2.2.1.1
            15 May 2015 at 9:27 pm

            Fair enough, guvna

          • Stuart Hawkins 14.2.2.1.2
            18 May 2015 at 6:21 am

            “Everything in your comment has already been covered.”

            No it has not, you are a fucking liar! The objections stand and your attempt to argue against them just proved you are ill equipped to continue this discussion.

            “Given that the boldface script has appeared, I suggest for your consideration that it might be an implicit indication that we are beginning to bore a moderator.”

            Why should I care what a moderator thinks when they are clearly biased?

            If you wish to pay me a million dollars to call you a goatfucker to your face, we can hash out the specific terms of the exchange on open mike. But unless we get an explicit “pray continue” (and not an implicit “prey, continue”), it might be good idea to call it a day.”

            Who cares you are all too stupid, ignorant and self involved to continue anyway

  15. ropata 15
    7 May 2015 at 10:58 pm

    Bryan Gould: Perils of free market free-for-all

    Very few seem to realise how thoroughly our civilisation has been transformed by the triumph of the “free market” ideology. They do not see that Western liberalism, which has informed, supported and extended human progress for perhaps 700 years, has now been supplanted by an aggressive self-interested doctrine of the individual which leaves no room for community and co-operation. Even the victims of this comprehensive and fundamental change seem hardly aware of what has happened.

    • Stuart Hawkins 15.1
      9 May 2015 at 4:59 pm

      I can disprove that whole load of rubbish in one sentence.

      The free market is people making voluntary interactions.

      This means that they may choose to interact with any consideration they so choose in mind, if you are claiming they do not select those particular considerations then what right does anyone have to force them to.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 5:02 pm

        They can choose that their children interact with preventable infectious respiratory diseases, for example. They can choose to live on Earth, where Epidemiology has an evidential basis.

        Their bad choices are on them, not Stuey.

        • Stuart Hawkins 15.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 9:26 pm

          “They can choose that their children interact with preventable infectious respiratory diseases, for example.”

          So everyone must follow the will and mandates of the medical elite?

          Or are we talking about evil people who know they are doing harm and still do it anyway?

          Which is it? You must choose one as the alternatives are exhaustive. I can prove your statement foolish either way you go but then again so could any child as it was laughable in the extreme.

          “They can choose to live on Earth, where Epidemiology has an evidential basis.”

          So it is everyone must follow the will and mandates of the medical elite then? Forced vaccinations, health treatments, exercise regimes, set diets and organ lotteries for all!!!!

          “Their bad choices are on them, not Stuey.”

          Read above but then I am sure you will do as you always do and change the subject

          • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 9:31 pm

            Medical elite? 😆

            He’s a conspiracy theorist as well from the sounds of it. Too funny.

            • Stuart Hawkins 15.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 10:13 pm

              Just as I predicted you ignored it but here you go have another chance at actually answering. Which is it? Is it that the medical profession should be telling us how to live our lives or are the people you are talking about in your example evil? You put it forward as a counter-example to my argument so answer which it is? Does it fail to be a counter-example or are you saying we must be ruled for our own good?

              “They can choose that their children interact with preventable infectious respiratory diseases, for example.”

              So everyone must follow the will and mandates of the medical elite?

              Or are we talking about evil people who know they are doing harm and still do it anyway?

              Which is it? You must choose one as the alternatives are exhaustive. I can prove your statement foolish either way you go but then again so could any child as it was laughable in the extreme.

              “They can choose to live on Earth, where Epidemiology has an evidential basis.”

              So it is everyone must follow the will and mandates of the medical elite then? Forced vaccinations, health treatments, exercise regimes, set diets and organ lotteries for all!!!!

              “Their bad choices are on them, not Stuey.”

              Read above but then I am sure you will do as you always do and change the subject

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                9 May 2015 at 10:23 pm

                …which is it?

                Neither.

                Medical…organ lotteries…

                Nope, not that either. I’m simply calling attention to the yawning gulf between your shiny free market model and the evidence.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  9 May 2015 at 10:59 pm

                  “…which is it?

                  Neither.”

                  Not possible as there are only two possibilities of what those parents would be doing.

                  1.They are exposing their children willingly in knowledge that they are causing harm then they are violating the children’s rights and that makes the act criminal.

                  2. Their beliefs do not hold that what they are doing is harmful. As such what right do any of us have to put the ideas of the medical profession above their beliefs? By all means educate them but do not put your judgement as instantly above theirs.

                  “Medical…organ lotteries…

                  Nope, not that either. I’m simply calling attention to the yawning gulf between your shiny free market model and the evidence.”

                  By making totally unsubstantiated statements which you claim as truth? By ignoring that which undermines your objections? Or by simply claiming that I am saying something my arguments totally reject. Sorry discussions don’t work like that and it is time you found out how they work.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    9 May 2015 at 11:04 pm

                    Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger, it’s time for Stuey’s reality check.

                    Now, let me get on with laughing at the notion of will-power as a vector for the spread of infectious diseases.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:45 pm

                      “…which is it?

                      Neither.”

                      Not possible as there are only two possibilities of what those parents would be doing.

                      1.They are exposing their children willingly in knowledge that they are causing harm then they are violating the children’s rights and that makes the act criminal.

                      2. Their beliefs do not hold that what they are doing is harmful. As such what right do any of us have to put the ideas of the medical profession above their beliefs? By all means educate them but do not put your judgement as instantly above theirs.

                      “Medical…organ lotteries…

                      Nope, not that either. I’m simply calling attention to the yawning gulf between your shiny free market model and the evidence.”

                      By making totally unsubstantiated statements which you claim as truth? By ignoring that which undermines your objections? Or by simply claiming that I am saying something my arguments totally reject. Sorry discussions don’t work like that and it is time you found out how they work.

                      “Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger, it’s time for Stuey’s reality check.”

                      What?

                      “Now, let me get on with laughing at the notion of will-power as a vector for the spread of infectious diseases.”

                      Let me laugh at it too but first tell me who made that claim?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:50 pm

                      Pay more attention, and you might even find an evidentiary link. That’s the second time I’ve had to educate you about links, Stuey. Sharpen up.

                      When you were blithering about parents willfully exposing their kids to infection, what exactly was going through your head?

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      10 May 2015 at 8:32 am

                      “Pay more attention, and you might even find an evidentiary link. That’s the second time I’ve had to educate you about links, Stuey. Sharpen up.”

                      I ignored it as it is a link to a study which would only have relevance if you thought that people’s personal beliefs in regards to health should be overridden by the medical community. You see I discounted that as a possibility as you all but laughed at the idea of ‘the medical elite’.

                      “When you were blithering about parents willfully exposing their kids to infection, what exactly was going through your head?”

                      The context in which you brought it up and your response after the fact. Do you not understand the direct and unavoidable implications of your statements?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 8:37 am

                      I doubt Stuey’s equipped to make the connection between his notions of voluntary mutuality and the increased rate of infectious diseases over the last thirty years.

                      It’s interesting to see the things he accuses others of wanting to do, though, given what we know about projection.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 8:43 am

                      My existence must be impossible!

                      No, wait, Stuey has just invented another false dichotomy.

                      Stuey, the increased rate of infectious preventable diseases over the last thirty years is a direct consequence of what you conceitedly proclaim is “mutually voluntary”.

                      So here’s a little conundrum for you. If poverty is a choice, how come more people choose to be poor when the National Party is in power?

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      10 May 2015 at 3:53 pm

                      “My existence must be impossible!

                      No, wait, Stuey has just invented another false dichotomy.”

                      Not at all you just don’t understand English well enough to communicate properly; I suggest you start with implicature

                      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#RelThe

                      “Stuey, the increased rate of infectious preventable diseases over the last thirty years is a direct consequence of what you conceitedly proclaim is “mutually voluntary”.

                      And the only way to stop that is by over-riding people’s healthcare choices and forcing them to follow what the medical profession prescribes; which is what option 2. is dealing with. That is the direct and unavoidable implication of your line of argument. I then used reductio ad absurdum to show how unacceptable your line of argument is.

                      “So here’s a little conundrum for you. If poverty is a choice,”

                      It is an outcome not a choice please try to keep up.

                      “how come more people choose to be poor when the National Party is in power?”

                      I do not argue for National’s policies so I really fail to see the relevance of this question.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 7:18 am

                      Nah Stuey, there’s another way to address poverty-related illnesses that doesn’t involve authoritarian wet-dreams.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      11 May 2015 at 4:28 pm

                      “Nah Stuey, there’s another way to address poverty-related illnesses that doesn’t involve authoritarian wet-dreams.”

                      Really? So there is a way that involves no compulsion at all and isn’t letting people make their own choices?

                      let me introduce you to something; it is called

                      THE LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

                      In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

                      No wonder you never posted what it is and only claimed its existence…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

                      Hint: poverty-related.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      11 May 2015 at 7:26 pm

                      “Nah Stuey, there’s another way to address poverty-related illnesses that doesn’t involve authoritarian wet-dreams.”

                      Really? So there is a way that involves no compulsion at all and isn’t letting people make their own choices?

                      let me introduce you to something; it is called

                      THE LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

                      In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

                      No wonder you never posted what it is and only claimed its

                      existence…Hint: poverty-related.”

                      Hint : violates the requirement that there be no compulsion so that would be a fail on your part

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 7:56 pm

                      It’s a balance Stuey: on the one hand we have your anti-social whinging about having to pay your taxes, and on the other we have little coffins.

                      Most of us will feel compelled to do something about the little coffins before we give a toss about you.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 11:27 am

                      It’s all a question of persoective, OAB: we see little coffins, stewie sees objects that he can use as steps to financial wealth, so the more of them the better.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 6:40 pm

                      “It’s a balance Stuey: on the one hand we have your anti-social whinging about having to pay your taxes, and on the other we have little coffins.”

                      Ouch this proves desperation and is…

                      Argumentum ad Misericordiam
                      http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/misery.html

                      We are not logically compelled to accept your argument but not accepting means children die. This a recognized logical fallacy and as such your argument is still logically rejected. You see arguments about governments legitimacy and authority do not have to deal with ‘dead children’.

                      When and if we have a discussion on how to deal with infectious diseases I will give my opinion. This, unfortunately for you, is not that discussion.

                      “Most of us will feel compelled to do something about the little coffins before we give a toss about you.”

                      Argumentum ad Misericordiam
                      http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/misery.html

                      They are not relevant to our discussion on the authority of government just as a lot of other things are not relevant.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 May 2015 at 7:49 am

                      You were the one bleating about compulsion Stuey. If you don’t feel compelled by infant mortality that’s your business.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      15 May 2015 at 5:36 pm

                      “You were the one bleating about compulsion Stuey. If you don’t feel compelled by infant mortality that’s your business.”

                      This is not a discussion about what is to be done about infectious diseases it is a discussion about the legitimacy of government and its limitations. Until we have a discussion about infectious disease that is irrelevant as it is the logical fallacy…

                      Argumentum Ad Misericordiam

                      “We are not logically compelled to accept your argument but not accepting means children die. This a recognized logical fallacy and as such your argument is still logically rejected. You see arguments about governments legitimacy and authority do not have to deal with ‘dead children’.

                      When and if we have a discussion on how to deal with infectious diseases I will give my opinion. This, unfortunately for you, is not that discussion.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 May 2015 at 6:20 pm

                      This thread, Stuey, is about the compulsion you allegedly feel so keenly when you pay your taxes.

    • Jonty 15.2
      18 May 2015 at 11:20 am

      Couldn’t agree more. I’m sure the very same evolutionary path was a precurser to the collapse all previous civilisations.

  16. ropata 16
    8 May 2015 at 12:42 am

    Bernard Hickey: Now the Capital Gains Tax debate is a poisoned well, Bernard Hickey points to other ideas that could solve the Reserve Bank’s financial stability concerns and fix the Govt’s fiscal problems

    Also, landlords are in no position to complain.

    They are the most subsidised industry in New Zealand, as Finance Minister Bill English regularly points out.

    Taxpayer-funded Income related rents and accommodation supplements worth more than NZ$2.2 billion a year are spent subsidising more than half of all the rental properties in New Zealand.

    Mr English now has a fiscal problem worsened by these subsidies and the prospect that rampant house price inflation may eventually be reflected in higher rents. A tax on landlords at even half the 8% deemed return suggested by Mr Crawford could solve both the Government’s fiscal problems and the Reserve Bank’s financial stability issues in one fell swoop.

    And it wouldn’t be quite such a hospital pass in a political sense.

    Only 33,000 voters would be in a position to complain.

    Why should New Zealand’s political and economic debate held hostage by 33,000 voters?

    • Stuart Hawkins 16.1
      9 May 2015 at 5:07 pm

      “Bernard Hickey: Now the Capital Gains Tax debate is a poisoned well, Bernard Hickey points to other ideas that could solve the Reserve Bank’s financial stability concerns and fix the Govt’s fiscal problems”

      Just stop spending.

      “Also, landlords are in no position to complain.”

      Why not?

      “They are the most subsidised industry in New Zealand, as Finance Minister Bill English regularly points out.”

      No they are not, that would be beneficiaries that have their entire spending subsidized.

      “Taxpayer-funded Income related rents and accommodation supplements worth more than NZ$2.2 billion a year are spent subsidising more than half of all the rental properties in New Zealand.”

      Those subsidies are to the renters so no you are a liar.

      “Mr English now has a fiscal problem worsened by these subsidies and the prospect that rampant house price inflation may eventually be reflected in higher rents. A tax on landlords at even half the 8% deemed return suggested by Mr Crawford could solve both the Government’s fiscal problems and the Reserve Bank’s financial stability issues in one fell swoop.”

      But the best solution is getting out of the market.

      “And it wouldn’t be quite such a hospital pass in a political sense.

      Only 33,000 voters would be in a position to complain.”

      Well everyone has the right to own property and to interact voluntarily and this violates those two rights. Doesn’t that mean everyone is diminished? Yes it does….

      “Why should New Zealand’s political and economic debate held hostage by 33,000 voters?”

      Why should the lives of the Wu Hu, The Jews, the French Creoles… get in the way of a strong government? Because the rights of an individual are more important than the desires of the culmination of the rest of humanity.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 5:12 pm

        In order to determine the rights of an individual, there has to be a system within which those rights can be measured. The system will be imperfect, and will lead to perverse outcomes, cf: Piketty et al.

        An inevitable outcome of this is privileged ingrates demanding that their privilege be entrenched.

        Like Stuey.

        • Stuart Hawkins 16.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 9:33 pm

          “In order to determine the rights of an individual, there has to be a system within which those rights can be measured.”

          Incorrect; I suggest you take a few philosophy courses to see why that is false.

          “The system will be imperfect, and will lead to perverse outcomes, cf: Piketty et al.”

          That is the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Do you really not understand an argument to this degree or are you being intentionally ignorant?

          “An inevitable outcome of this is privileged ingrates demanding that their privilege be entrenched.”

          If the system privileges me why do I want it to be totally abolished? That is the question you keep failing to answer with these little assertions that I am trying to ‘entrench my privilege’. Answer that or be shown to be a liar (for the fourth or fifth time now but I am not sure as I have lost count)

          “Like Stuey.”

          If that is the case why do I want the system abolished?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 9:35 pm

            An appeal to authority such as “take a few philosophy courses”? What’s the matter Stuey, haven’t you rote-learned the correct response yet?

            • Stuart Hawkins 16.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 11:03 pm

              “An appeal to authority such as “take a few philosophy courses”?”

              Yawn.

              An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

              My statement fails to be an appeal to authority, it is a a statement that tells you where you can find a comprehensive explanation why your statement is wrong. So that makes it a reference for clarifying rescources

              “What’s the matter Stuey, haven’t you rote-learned the correct response yet?”

              Yet another claim unsupported by facts

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                9 May 2015 at 11:59 pm

                Seriously, you cite unspecified systems of philosophy as evidence that systems are unnecessary when determining human rights.

                That’s some pretty strong cognitive dissonance you’ve got going on there Stuey.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  10 May 2015 at 8:37 am

                  “Seriously, you cite unspecified systems of philosophy as evidence that systems are unnecessary when determining human rights.”

                  Not unspecified at all; you made a claim that is dis-proven by ANY understanding of moral philosophy.

                  “That’s some pretty strong cognitive dissonance you’ve got going on there Stuey.”

                  In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. Pointing out that a field of study totally disproves your statement is consistent with everything I have posted so far so ummm , no, no issue there.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 May 2015 at 8:54 am

                    The fact that a field of study is necessary to ‘disprove’ my statement, confirms my statement. Human rights require a framework – a system – to exist within.

                    Further, we know from sixty thousand years of human history that the Stueys of this world do not respect them, and seek to deny them at every turn. Strength, they say, must carry the day. Which is why they have that weird creepy relationship with serial killers.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      10 May 2015 at 4:04 pm

                      “The fact that a field of study is necessary to ‘disprove’ my statement, confirms my statement. Human rights require a framework – a system – to exist within.”

                      That is exactly like claiming that the following about the physical world

                      “In order to determine the properties of reality, there has to be a system within which those properties can be measured.”

                      means that by studying the world physics is necessary to experience the physical properties. The properties exist and we discover the nature of them just as the rights exist as a corollary of the nature of human beings and the ‘system’ discovers them.

                      “Further, we know from sixty thousand years of human history that the Stueys of this world do not respect them, and seek to deny them at every turn. Strength, they say, must carry the day.”

                      Well that is a lie.

                      “Which is why they have that weird creepy relationship with serial killers.”

                      That’s it you are going to get endless posts of the questions I have asked that you failed to answer until you stop lying, you actually attempt to answer them, or we meet in person and I explain exactly why you are wrong.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 7:16 am

                      Did you just pretend that human rights are as inviolable as the laws of Physics?

                      Meet in person? Having tiny little tanty fantasies Stuey?

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      11 May 2015 at 7:31 pm

                      “Did you just pretend that human rights are as inviolable as the laws of Physics?”

                      Yes human rights are a logical conclusion of reality.

                      “Meet in person? Having tiny little tanty fantasies Stuey?”

                      Yes, I want to prevent you from resorting to avoidance and insults. Meeting in person would stop both.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 May 2015 at 8:00 pm

                      No, it wouldn’t, Stuey, I’ll be just as abrasive in person and there’s nothing you can do about it, although watching you make the attempt would be amusing.

                      And no, human rights are a consequence of law and governance. There’s nothing immutable about them whatsoever, no matter how hard you believe otherwise.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 6:52 pm

                      “No, it wouldn’t, Stuey, I’ll be just as abrasive in person and there’s nothing you can do about it, although watching you make the attempt would be amusing.”

                      You don’t know how loud my voice is.

                      “And no, human rights are a consequence of law and governance.”

                      No as that makes a really ludicrous system where you can justify North Korea, Ethnic cleansing etc. i really don’t think you want to say that do you?

                      “There’s nothing immutable about them whatsoever, no matter how hard you believe otherwise.”

                      Then you have no problem with the holocaust? I do, it violated a lot of people’s rights. You do not have that luxury as by your definition Jews (and people of Jewish decent like myself) did not have any rights under German law and governance.

                      By the way that is reductio ad absurdum as it does relate to human rights not an appeal to the tragedy of millions being murdered.

                      I await the quoting of Godwin’s Law…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 May 2015 at 7:58 am

                      Reductio ad absurdum again? Desperate.

                      Get a clue, Stuey, not all governance is created equal.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      15 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

                      “Reductio ad absurdum again? Desperate.”

                      Ohh I didn’t realize there was a limit on how many times I can use logic to prove you wrong. My mistake I will…. No wait I can use it as many times as I like because it it logical and relevant.

                      “Get a clue, Stuey, not all governance is created equal.”

                      I’m sorry SCT theory doesn’t discriminate in these matters; the Germans didn’t leave so they must have accepted it. See that is using your arguments against you; no you must backtrack or ditch the ‘you agree or leave’ nonsense you so love.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 May 2015 at 6:22 pm

                      Yes, Stuey, your absurd pretence that we’re discussing North Korea indeed qualifies, which is why I mentioned it.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:03 am

                      ““Reductio ad absurdum again? Desperate.”
                      Ohh I didn’t realize there was a limit on how many times I can use logic to prove you wrong. My mistake I will…. No wait I can use it as many times as I like because it it logical and relevant.
                      “Get a clue, Stuey, not all governance is created equal.”
                      I’m sorry SCT theory doesn’t discriminate in these matters; the Germans didn’t leave so they must have accepted it. See that is using your arguments against you; no you must backtrack or ditch the ‘you agree or leave’ nonsense you so love.
                      Yes, Stuey, your absurd pretence that we’re discussing North Korea indeed qualifies, which is why I mentioned it.”

                      Well it exists doesn’t it? It has the exact same characteristics that you claim relevant to a SC argument of justification for the government it has. Therefore the fact that it is an abhorrent hell hole shows that SCT is not a suitable justification for government.
                      Besides the example was Nazi Germany not North Korea.

  17. ropata 17
    9 May 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Is Stuart “The Mastermind” ?

  18. ropata 18
    9 May 2015 at 10:35 pm

    I don’t know what planet Stuey is on, but on Earth we had a recent event called the “Global Financial Crisis” that demonstrated exactly why free marketeers are all charlatans in pinstriped suits.

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
    http://redrave.blogspot.co.nz/2008/10/crisis-of-state-monopoly-capitalism-in.html
    http://endofcapitalism.com/2009/02/07/capitalism-reduces-humans-to-buying-units/

    Why Libertarianism Is A Fundamentally Flawed Ideology

    When success itself is admired, regardless of how it is won, then the result becomes what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes called “the state of nature,” in which there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

    This is what results when everyone places success above fairness or any other ethical objective. Some people call this “state of nature” “libertarianism,” or “anarchy,” and they think that this might-makes-right society is the ideal form of “government” (no government at all), towards which the world should strive.

    • Stuart Hawkins 18.1
      9 May 2015 at 11:10 pm

      “I don’t know what planet Stuey is on, but on Earth we had a recent event called the “Global Financial Crisis” that demonstrated exactly why free marketeers are all charlatans in pinstriped suits. ”

      WHAT FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have financial regulations, centralized banking controls, government control and oversight, etc etc etc etc. ANY ONE OF THESE PREVENTS IT BEING A FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!! The definition of the terms is what makes your claim wrong Ropata!!!!!!!!!!!

      Did you even watch the two videos I posted?

      • ropata 18.1.1
        10 May 2015 at 10:06 pm

        Saw them years ago. a bit of fun but not exactly factual are they.

        That’s why I have also posted numerous links to demonstrate the failure of unfettered “free” markets in the face of human greed. Recent history is a stark example of the need for more regulation.

        Those who preach free markets never practice it. They cheat, with insider trading, asymmetric information, elaborate credit schemes, and lies.

        • Stuart Hawkins 18.1.1.1
          11 May 2015 at 4:39 pm

          “Saw them years ago. a bit of fun but not exactly factual are they.”

          Well seeing as Hayek wants to free the markets (make them free markets) that would imply that they aren’t free markets now, and that part is factual.

          “That’s why I have also posted numerous links to demonstrate the failure of unfettered “free” markets in the face of human greed. Recent history is a stark example of the need for more regulation. ”

          And I have given examples of why they aren’t free markets. All I need is one example of a regulation or interference in the market to prove they aren’t free markets (that is the very definition of the term). I have given several and can list THOUSANDS more therefore your line of argument is as invalid as your examples.

          “Those who preach free markets never practice it.”

          Unsubstantiated claim. Ding.

          “They cheat, with insider trading,”

          What exactly is insider trading? Is it having more knowledge than others?

          “asymmetric information,”

          In the real world this is unavoidable and preventing it is impossible while mitigation unmanageable; so what do you propose be done about this?

          “elaborate credit schemes, and lies.”

          So fraud then? Yeah sounds like fraud? Well fraud is a crime so… Snap

          • ropata 18.1.1.1.1
            11 May 2015 at 8:28 pm

            You are as crazy as Peter Schiff, and he’s mad as a bag of ferrets.

            http://www.rawstory.com/2011/12/cenk-uygur-cuts-mic-of-peter-schiff/

            • Stuart Hawkins 18.1.1.1.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 6:56 pm

              Unsubstantiated claim. Ding.

              Insult. Ding.

              But seriously he kinda was right; to be Capitalism you need free markets, if there are regulations and restrictions etc then you do not have free markets so you can’t have Capitalism. It is undeniable logic.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                12 May 2015 at 7:18 pm

                Feel free to be dogmatically religious about this. Worship at the alter of “free markets” all you like. But understand that free markets have played no role in the creation of human civilisation, merely in the ending of it. The last thing that the 0.1% want are actual free markets and real competition. Monopolies and tightly held cartels are far more profitable.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 5:47 pm

                  “Feel free to be dogmatically religious about this.”

                  Claiming that is what I am doing does not change the fact that the DEFINITION of the terms proves me right and your kind wrong. You are literally trying to redefine the terms ‘free market’ and ‘capitalism’ to suit your own needs. Even one statutory regulation or restriction prevents the markets from being free markets and without free markets there can be no capitalism. END OF DISCUSSION.

                  “Worship at the alter of “free markets” all you like.”

                  I don’t care about free markets; i care about human rights and by definition the only system compliant with human rights is the free market.

                  “But understand that free markets have played no role in the creation of human civilisation, merely in the ending of it.”

                  If there are regulations and restrictions etc then you do not have free markets so you can’t have Capitalism. It is undeniable logic with shows we do not have free markets and as such your claim is proven false.

                  “The last thing that the 0.1% want are actual free markets and real competition. Monopolies and tightly held cartels are far more profitable.”

                  That is why government has failed but thanks for the proof i am right.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    15 May 2015 at 5:59 pm

                    Using your own scriptural definitions to prove your own dogmatic views correct is called what again? LOL

                    Your religion of framing human relations, human values and human ethics all in relation to the free market is daft; some kind of stupid and destructive heresy is probably the best way to describe it.

                    As I said, not a single civilisation, empire or nation state of the last 20,000 years has been built on the operation of free markets. Get used to that fact.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:11 am

                      “Using your own scriptural definitions to prove your own dogmatic views correct is called what again?”

                      A circular argument. This is what you do and I do not; if you think otherwise please show me the circle of logic.

                      ” LOL”

                      No that is an acronym for “Laugh Out Loud” (LOL) it has nothing to do with a circular argument.

                      “Your religion of framing human relations, human values and human ethics all in relation to the free market is daft;”

                      What? Who do you think is doing that? I am saying reason can be used to determine what the necessary and sufficient characteristics of ethical human interaction are. That in so doing we can logically and rationally prove that ONLY the free market respects the rights of individuals. That given that is the case the only moral course of action is to allow free markets.

                      “some kind of stupid and destructive heresy is probably the best way to describe it.”

                      Well good luck arguing on religious grounds…

                      “As I said, not a single civilisation, empire or nation state of the last 20,000 years has been built on the operation of free markets. Get used to that fact.”

                      Is does not imply ought so therefore your sentence above is irrelevant to a discussion of what should be the case and that is what we are discussing here.

                      http://www.antisupernatural.com/humeslaw.html

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:27 am

                      As I said, no civilisation, empire, nation state or even modern day corporation has been built using free market principles – they have all been built by tilting the entire landscape in their favour wherever they can and against the competition, wherever they can.

                      Free market ideology is for suckers, and has never worked to build anything substantial or worthwhile in its history – apart from careers for intellectuals and academics.

  19. Drowsy M. Kram 19
    10 May 2015 at 5:53 am

    RE: “ABOLISH GOVERNMENT NOW!” – sounds risky.

    History tells us (and logic dictates) that there was a time when government(s) did not exist.

    Humans, programmed with biological drives not unlike to other animals, went forth, multiplied (initially in fits and starts, and recently with great success), competed and cooperated. Along the way they developed distinct cultures and experimented with systems of organisation including, relatively recently, a plethora of types of government stemming from diverse social and political philosophies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows

    No-one can ‘win’ the debate regarding the best system of organisation (including the “ABOLISH GOVERNMENT NOW!” option championed by Stuart Hawkins), although the pharaohs of ancient Egypt gave it a go. Various types of organisation and governance have delivered better AND worse outcomes at different times, and in different situations, for different groups and individuals.

    Given that our planet is home to 7 billion plus humans, I genuinely can’t comprehend the enthusiasm for transitioning to a government-free global society – wouldn’t it be inviting chaos? Governments are starting points for BETTER governments and better societies (abolishing slavery, enshrining universal suffrage and other human rights, endeavouring to providing quality healthcare, education and other public good services to all who might benefit). Surely most New Zealanders supported our government’s contributions to the recent international programme of earthquake relief in Nepal, remembering that the governments of Australia, Britain, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and the United States of America collectively sent 600 emergency workers to help in the search for Christchurch earthquake survivors.

    Governments can be frustrating, often requiring earnest cajoling to do the right thing, but they are a necessary stage in humanity’s development, with the potential to craft sustainable futures for billions (and billionaires, but let’s take the rough with the smooth :-))

    • Stuart Hawkins 19.1
      10 May 2015 at 8:56 am

      “History tells us (and logic dictates) that there was a time when government(s) did not exist.”

      Incorrect, history and logic show that every collection of humans throughout history had a government of some form. This ranged from a dictatorship (a chief etc or just the most physically able male capable of forcing others to capitulate etc) to a Democracy and at no point was there a system of no government. This was true for any time prior to humans having developed the capacity to reason up until such a point as far as philosophy was considered.

      “No-one can ‘win’ the debate regarding the best system of organisation (including the “ABOLISH GOVERNMENT NOW!” option championed by Stuart Hawkins),”

      Logically you can not make that statement at all.

      ” although the pharaohs of ancient Egypt gave it a go. Various types of organisation and governance have delivered better AND worse outcomes at different times, and in different situations, for different groups and individuals.”

      That is why we need no government; to let us decide for ourselves.

      ” Governments are starting points for BETTER governments and better societies”

      Why? Why can’t a total sea change be a better answer?

      “(abolishing slavery, enshrining universal suffrage and other human rights,”

      Those rights do not require law, they are obvious from reason alone.

      “endeavouring to providing quality healthcare,”

      Why is that a goal for all people? Healthcare is a private good.

      “education and other public good services to all who might benefit).”

      If they are of benefit to us all then there is no need for government to provide them as they are beneficial and people will pay to have them without government forcing the issue.

      “Given that our planet is home to 7 billion plus humans, I genuinely can’t comprehend the enthusiasm for transitioning to a government-free global society – wouldn’t it be inviting chaos?”

      Why?

      “Surely most New Zealanders supported our government’s contributions to the recent international programme of earthquake relief in Nepal, remembering that the governments of Australia, Britain, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and the United States of America collectively sent 600 emergency workers to help in the search for Christchurch earthquake survivors.”

      Ohh well then, as you are clearly claiming people would have chosen to support this without government control, I fail to see its relevance?

      “Governments can be frustrating, often requiring earnest cajoling to do the right thing, but they are a necessary stage in humanity’s development, with the potential to craft sustainable futures for billions (and billionaires, but let’s take the rough with the smooth :-))”

      Why? All you have done is claim things without evidence, proof, or any logical or rational support whatsoever. You need to answer the why.

      Why are governments necessary to provide x and y?
      Why are x and y desirable?
      Why would there be chaos if Governments as we know them were abolished?
      Why is government better than the systems that are alternate?
      Why are billionaires bad?

      You have only raised a lot of questions that you have made no attempt to answer.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1
        10 May 2015 at 9:05 am

        You’ve invented a bunch of strawmen and are now demanding that other people knock them down for you.

        Oh, and your fatuous assertion about public health needs a reality check.

        • Stuart Hawkins 19.1.1.1
          10 May 2015 at 4:07 pm

          When someone proves you wrong it isn’t a straw man argument.

          The only thing I said that could be an argument is

          “Incorrect, history and logic show that every collection of humans throughout history had a government of some form. This ranged from a dictatorship (a chief etc or just the most physically able male capable of forcing others to capitulate etc) to a Democracy and at no point was there a system of no government. This was true for any time prior to humans having developed the capacity to reason up until such a point as far as philosophy was considered.”

          So please knock it down

          While you are at it answer the questions too

          Why are governments necessary to provide x and y?
          Why are x and y desirable?
          Why would there be chaos if Governments as we know them were abolished?
          Why is government better than the systems that are alternate?
          Why are billionaires bad?

          • ropata 19.1.1.1.1
            10 May 2015 at 10:13 pm

            I prefer living in a peacefully governed society, to some libertard hellhole barbed wire compound.

            • Stuart Hawkins 19.1.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2015 at 4:42 pm

              Hey, in my system you can make your own voluntary membership governing body; if it really is better you will soon find it includes every individual.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                11 May 2015 at 8:53 pm

                You haven’t got a system. The dogma you follow doesn’t qualify as one, most notably because it is refuted by reality at every turn.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 5:52 pm

                  “You haven’t got a system.”

                  Actually I do but you haven’t asked about it and have instead claimed complete knowledge of what my arguments and beliefs entailed. So which is it? Do you not know what my system involves or do you know the entirety of my arguments and beliefs.

                  Of course I will get no answer to this as it proves you wrong yet again.

                  “The dogma you follow doesn’t qualify as one, most notably because it is refuted by reality at every turn.”

                  How so? Please elaborate? What facts refute my system and how does it not qualify as such? Afterall you have claimed to know exactly what I am arguing for so you must be able to do this.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 May 2015 at 6:26 pm

                    You’ve been dropping big smelly clues everywhere Stuey, from your fatuous dogma about the free market to your refusal to acknowledge the UDoHR.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1.2
            11 May 2015 at 7:51 am

            Why are billionaires bad?

            Is a strawman argument, since no-one has said they are. However, Piff et al 2012, in Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior, showed multiple lines of evidence that wealth is inversely proportional to ethics, so there’s that.

            • Stuart Hawkins 19.1.1.1.2.1
              11 May 2015 at 4:47 pm

              “Why are billionaires bad?

              Is a strawman argument, since no-one has said they are.”

              Drowsy M. Kram implied it in this “Governments can be frustrating, often requiring earnest cajoling to do the right thing, but they are a necessary stage in humanity’s development, with the potential to craft sustainable futures for billions (and billionaires, but let’s take the rough with the smooth :-))”

              But sorry that question was intended for him alone I must have copied it by mistake, my bad.

              ” However, Piff et al 2012, in Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior, showed multiple lines of evidence that wealth is inversely proportional to ethics, so there’s that.”

              Hmm what about the same sort of studies that show ‘Greenies’ are more likely to shop lift, or blah blah blah. Not really relevant to what we are discussing now is it?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                11 May 2015 at 4:50 pm

                Piff et al posit no mechanism to explain the finding, although they note that in fact, the group most likely to shoplift are the wealthy. It’s right there in the research.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  11 May 2015 at 7:39 pm

                  One article explaining the faults and biases of the Piff study

                  http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/on-whether-rich-are-jerks.html

                  and one explaining the greenies finding

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

                  But this is still irrelevant…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 May 2015 at 7:46 pm

                    Peer reviewed papers don’t get debunked by self-published blogs, Stuey.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 May 2015 at 11:19 am

                      lol

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      12 May 2015 at 6:58 pm

                      “Peer reviewed papers don’t get debunked by self-published blogs, Stuey.”

                      Umm yeah they do if the points happen to be true…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 May 2015 at 7:54 am

                      No Stuey, credible responses to peer-reviewed papers get published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been credible responses to Piff et al, and that isn’t one of them.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      15 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

                      “No Stuey, credible responses to peer-reviewed papers get published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been credible responses to Piff et al, and that isn’t one of them.”
                      “Peer reviewed papers don’t get debunked by self-published blogs, Stuey.”

                      Sorry you lose this one; by definition if the countering points happen to be true they do debunk peer reviewed papers. That is how reason and logic works.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 May 2015 at 6:17 pm

                      “Happen to be true” – aye. They may or may not be, and that is the value of peer-review. The article’s citations, by-the-way, are self-references – another red flag.

                      Various published (not self-published) responses to Piff et al point to alleged research bias, and again – this doesn’t necessarily refute the finding either.

                      If you recall, I raised it in response to your strawman piffle about billionaires.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      16 May 2015 at 5:50 pm

                      Sorry nearly missed this one…

                      “Happen to be true” – aye. They may or may not be, and that is the value of peer-review. The article’s citations, by-the-way, are self-references – another red flag.”

                      Do you understand the statement I made about debunking peer reviewed studies? It is a general statement not meaning to put the first google search result posted here to show that, despite what you claimed people argue against it (the same for the greenie thing too), as being the unadulterated truth. You said that it is impossible for a self published site to refute the peer reviewed article and I pointed out the criteria that gives the lie to that statement.

                      “Various published (not self-published) responses to Piff et al point to alleged research bias, and again – this doesn’t necessarily refute the finding either.”

                      And my general statement of ‘they do if they happen to be true’ still stands.

                      “If you recall, I raised it in response to your strawman piffle about billionaires.”

                      Liar. You raised it after I accidentally copied questions intended for someone else into my response to you and failed to delete the irrelevant one.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 May 2015 at 6:00 pm

                      “they do if they happen to be true”.

                      Pay attention. If there is research bias the finding may still be true, either serendipitously, or because the bias isn’t sufficient to negate the results.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:17 am

                      ““they do if they happen to be true”.
                      Pay attention. If there is research bias the finding may still be true, either serendipitously, or because the bias isn’t sufficient to negate the results.”

                      Again a statement about how the contents of a self published page will disprove a peer reviewed article/study. It makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER about the relevance or validity of the site I posted as proof that some people argue against the study you quoted.

                      Do you understand English? If not get someone to translate for you if you are having difficulty understanding why your continued responses on this topic are futile.

  20. McFlock 20
    10 May 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Cliff notes for new entrants:

    Ropata accused rogernomics of destroying the social contract.

    Stuart responded with:

    No such thing as a social contract, never was.

    So OAB linked to the wikipedia entry on social contract theory.

    Stuart has a low opinion of the wikipedia page on social contracts

    on the basis that Wikipedia is written by the community and as such plagued by misconceptions and shoddy writing.

    He offers no argument against the content of the wikipedia page beyond the fact that it is a wikipedia page. This seems to be the reverse of how he defined appeal to authority:

    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

    Wikipedia is claimed to be full of misconceptions. Wikipedia makes a claim C about a subject. Therefore C is a misconception.

    Indeed, if stuart weren’t a hypocrite he’d address the points in the wikipedia article to demonstrate why social contracts have never existed. But instead he flails around with forced vaccinations, whether a contract must be legally or morally binding, even measuring physical world.

    Lord save us from libertarian morons (redundant term, I know).

    • miravox 20.1
      11 May 2015 at 1:34 am

      Thanks for that summary McFlock. Saved me from getting caught up in meaningless words from some randist/von Mises ethics-free apologist for doing whatever the hell he likes and sod the rest.

      • Stuart Hawkins 20.1.1
        11 May 2015 at 7:40 pm

        Not a Randian and you are the onbe advocatin human rights abuses

        • miravox 20.1.1.1
          11 May 2015 at 8:32 pm

          Ah – von Mises. I’m happy to go with the rest of my sentence.

          • Stuart Hawkins 20.1.1.1.1
            12 May 2015 at 7:00 pm

            You are still the one advocating human rights abuses

            • miravox 20.1.1.1.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 8:42 pm

              Nope. Because I don’t equate human rights with property rights like Rothbard does.

              His libertarian argumentum ad absurdum on the rights of children is particularly abhorrent.

              • Stuart Hawkins …
                15 May 2015 at 6:01 pm

                “Nope. Because I don’t equate human rights with property rights like Rothbard does.”

                And that means I do the same without any questions from you to find out what I think? Good arguing there I think I will do the same about you. You think the caucasian blondes are the master race and that everyone else is inferior just like Hitler did; just like you did above I base this on nothing at all.

                “His libertarian argumentum ad absurdum on the rights of children is particularly abhorrent.”

                Ok, even though I am not a fan of the argument (or even concerned with it in the slightest) I will bite what is your objection (keeping in mind your emotional response to it is not an objection or any way evidence or proof it is wrong)?

                • miravox …
                  16 May 2015 at 8:10 am

                  “And that means I do the same without any questions from you to find out what I think?”

                  I did not say human rights as property rights was your belief, I said it was not my belief – there is a difference. Although I thought the Rothbard link would ‘speak’ to you as an example of something I don’t believe and you may given your previous comments on this thread.

                  With you writing a large proportion of the 400+ comments on this blog I think I can reasonably have some view on what you say you think. Especially when you say

                  I don’t care about free markets; i care about human rights and by definition the only system compliant with human rights is the free market.

                  Otherwise you’ve been spouting bullshit (I’ll accept that may be the case). There have been repeated attempts from, for example, OAB to find out what your version of human rights is and the response is still confusing except when you mention free markets.

                  Yet I have written six sentences without espousing my ideologies and you suggest that I’m a Nazi as a possible interpretation of my comment. Nice. I’m absolutely positive that if you read any of my comments in other threads you would find nothing to support this personal slight.

                  As for Rothbard and children as property – it’s an outcome consistent with the von Mises school, imo. This is an intellectual opinion, that I have an emotional repugnance for. Or are you suggesting as a female I am restricted to emotional responses? (no need to answer – just putting it out there).

                  • miravox …
                    16 May 2015 at 8:25 am

                    edit: (missed the window) As for Rothbard and children as property – Are you suggesting as a female I am restricted to emotional responses? (no need to answer – just putting it out there). I have an intellectual opinion based on human rights not equating to property rights. I do not viewing children as ‘goods’ that can be traded. This opinion does not exclude an emotional repugnance to the proposition as well. No, I’m not discussing it with you here.

                  • Stuart Hawkins …
                    16 May 2015 at 5:31 pm

                    “And that means I do the same without any questions from you to find out what I think?”
                    I did not say human rights as property rights was your belief,”

                    Then what was the relevance of the sentence?

                    ““Nope. Because I don’t equate human rights with property rights like Rothbard does.”

                    You are implying that is what I am doing so my question is valid and you have not answered it.

                    “I said it was not my belief – there is a difference. Although I thought the Rothbard link would ‘speak’ to you as an example of something I don’t believe and you may given your previous comments on this thread.”

                    So based on your bias; not on anything real? Besides your phrasing is deliberate and the implication is there.

                    “With you writing a large proportion of the 400+ comments on this blog I think I can reasonably have some view on what you say you think. Especially when you say”

                    Nope you can not as the only view I have been asked for which would give you any level of certainty is about helping others.

                    “I don’t care about free markets; i care about human rights and by definition the only system compliant with human rights is the free market.”

                    So that means a Rothbard based argument?

                    “Otherwise you’ve been spouting bullshit (I’ll accept that may be the case). ”

                    This does not logically follow; all you can rationally surmise from my posts is that I do not agree with the positions of the others.

                    “There have been repeated attempts from, for example, OAB to find out what your version of human rights is and the response is still confusing except when you mention free markets.”

                    I have stated, on numerous occasions, that human rights are the result of reason applied to the world. That’s what human rights are.

                    “Yet I have written six sentences without espousing my ideologies and you suggest that I’m a Nazi as a possible interpretation of my comment.”

                    Nope I do not

                    “And that means I do the same without any questions from you to find out what I think? Good arguing there I think I will do the same about you. You think the caucasian blondes are the master race and that everyone else is inferior just like Hitler did; just like you did above I base this on nothing at all.”

                    I even state, EXPLICITLY, that it is based on nothing at all in the same way you based your implication of my similar ideology to Rothbard on nothing at all.

                    “Nice. I’m absolutely positive that if you read any of my comments in other threads you would find nothing to support this personal slight”

                    Already stated IN THE COMMENT that it was based on nothing at alldren ! Try reading my comment.

                    “As for Rothbard and children as property – it’s an outcome consistent with the von Mises school, imo.”

                    And?

                    “This is an intellectual opinion, that I have an emotional repugnance for.”

                    Does that stop it being right? What if the truth just happens to offend your emotions?

                    “Or are you suggesting as a female I am restricted to emotional responses? (no need to answer – just putting it out there).”

                    Didn’t even know you were female, or care, so not sure how that enters into it.

                    Just to be clear..
                    Any un-chosen characteristics such as skin/hair/eye colour or sex/sexuality etc are not relevant to a discussion of rights or to the ability to reason.
                    The only thing the fact you are female has any relevance to would be to some argument about which one of us is more likely to accomplish some physical strength feat (males are typically bigger and stronger than females), who sees more colours (females typically do and have lower likelihood of and severity of colour blindness plus have increased incidence of tetrachromacy), or which one of us is capable of giving birth (something that to the best of my knowledge only one sex is capable of) etc. I.E. something that being male or female would give benefit or disadvantage to. So nothing that would interest me in the slightest.

                    added the edit

                    “edit: (missed the window) As for Rothbard and children as property – Are you suggesting as a female I am restricted to emotional responses? (no need to answer – just putting it out there).”

                    See above

                    “I have an intellectual opinion based on human rights not equating to property rights.”

                    Good as any opinion based upon anything else is just plain wrong.

                    “I do not viewing children as ‘goods’ that can be traded.”

                    Good and so you shouldn’t.

                    “This opinion does not exclude an emotional repugnance to the proposition as well.”

                    So long as it is not ONLY this emotional repugnance you base your disagreement upon.

                    “No, I’m not discussing it with you here.”

                    Good

        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1.2
          11 May 2015 at 8:43 pm

          When you say human rights, Stuey, I suspect you have some personal definition that you’re keeping to yourself, so to be clear, you’re talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if not, be clear about which articles you’re amending.

    • RedLogix 20.2
      11 May 2015 at 2:43 am

      I used to have the enthusiasm for playing with them McF – but it was good to see OAB doing duty here.

      His approach was more of a ‘kick em in the balls’ than I’m comfortable with – I preferred the ‘bore them to death with long turgid rebuttals’ method – but either way the general idea is to give them a microphone and let them dribble on until they’ve completely over-egged their narrow, morally bankrupt little argument, and realise they’ve made a complete fool of themselves.

      • Stuart Hawkins 20.2.1
        11 May 2015 at 7:41 pm

        Well you would need to make arguments to do that and OAB has not so yeah you are right he is doing something different.

    • Stuart Hawkins 20.3
      11 May 2015 at 5:02 pm

      And here we have McFlock giving us an example of comments without context being twisted. A very good example of the implicature I wanted OAB to study.

      “Ropata accused rogernomics of destroying the social contract.”

      meaning rogernomics came along and destroyed the ‘in force’ social contract.

      “No such thing as a social contract, never was.”

      My comment clearly showing that there was never a social contact in force.

      “Stuart has a low opinion of the wikipedia page on social contracts

      on the basis that Wikipedia is written by the community and as such plagued by misconceptions and shoddy writing.”

      A statement much later relating to Wikipedia in general not the page or its contents.

      “He offers no argument against the content of the wikipedia page beyond the fact that it is a wikipedia page. This seems to be the reverse of how he defined appeal to authority:

      An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.”

      Incorrect as this is what actually happened as shown by the thread posted here

      Stuart
      You mean the link to a wikipedia page “social contract”?
      That is not a fact; that is a debunked philosophical theory and a WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
      OAB
      “Debunked” by whom?
      In the witless right wing dribble that passes for thoughts you have, when did “the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual” cease to be an issue? You can call it whatever you want – most of us call it the social contract and couldn’t give a toss what label you prefer.
      Stuart
      You ask “Debunked” by whom? ”
      Well if we ignore Libertarian, Individualist, and Anarchist philosophers and only focus on left wing nut jobs that you would like we have feminists, race conscious philosophers, voluntary actioners, etc etc . The list is really long but simply put I can do it right now in a very simple sentence which you will attempt to argue against and fail.
      I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it. That is why it is”

      This shows that I gave a single argument that proves that no social contract was in force here at any point ever (I’ll give you a clue it in in this exert ‘I have not (nor anyone else ever) agreed to anything like a social contract, I (nor anyone else ever) was never told the terms and was never given the chance to accept or refuse. It is simply an Ad Hoc solution to why we should accept some obligation or such and not ever question it.’)

      “Wikipedia is claimed to be full of misconceptions. Wikipedia makes a claim C about a subject. Therefore C is a misconception.”

      Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?

      “Indeed, if stuart weren’t a hypocrite he’d address the points in the wikipedia article to demonstrate why social contracts have never existed. But instead he flails around with forced vaccinations, whether a contract must be legally or morally binding, even measuring physical world.”

      I addressed social contact theory that is what the counterargument I posted is. Do you know what a counter argument to a theory is? I even posted a link that explains several of them in an easily understood manner

      http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

      • McFlock 20.3.1
        11 May 2015 at 5:29 pm

        So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.

        Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have, e.g. no left wing feminist who has argued against social contract was linked to or even named by you. Just evidence-free assertions from yourself.

        As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.

        Your link made many of the same mistakes you’ve been called out on – codification being the prime example. Basically, if you’d learnt to think for yourself you’d be doing a lot better than you are now.
        And if I were to mimc your method, I’d fixate on the fact that the article is titled Why Social Contract arguments are almost always wrong. If social contract theory was incorrect then Social Contract arguments would always be wrong. Only one needs to be correct for the theory to be true…

        “Wikipedia is claimed to be full of misconceptions. Wikipedia makes a claim C about a subject. Therefore C is a misconception.”

        Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?

        Oh my god you’re a moron. No, I’m not making that claim. I’m claiming that the merits of any particular article rest on the contents of that article, not on whether it’s a wikipedia article. The contents that you have refused to address.

        • Stuart Hawkins 20.3.1.1
          11 May 2015 at 7:58 pm

          “So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.”

          Other than to point out SCT is debunked, no.

          “Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have, e.g. no left wing feminist who has argued against social contract was linked to or even named by you. Just evidence-free assertions from yourself.”

          No but then I was begging the question. I wanted him to ask.

          “As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.”

          Good another tactic I wanted OAB to try!

          “Your link made many of the same mistakes you’ve been called out on – codification being the prime example. Basically, if you’d learnt to think for yourself you’d be doing a lot better than you are now.”

          Says tacit consent man… You should have known tat was a non-starter

          “And if I were to mimc your method, I’d fixate on the fact that the article is titled Why Social Contract arguments are almost always wrong. If social contract theory was incorrect then Social Contract arguments would always be wrong. Only one needs to be correct for the theory to be true… ”

          Yes one that everyone has accepted!!!!! This is not the case ANYWHERE in the real world.

          “Wikipedia is claimed to be full of misconceptions. Wikipedia makes a claim C about a subject. Therefore C is a misconception.”

          Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?

          Oh my god you’re a moron. No, I’m not making that claim. I’m claiming that the merits of any particular article rest on the contents of that article, not on whether it’s a wikipedia article. The contents that you have refused to address.”

          Wow insults again; my statement ‘Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?’ is intended (the fact that it actually does so is also good) to point out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for me to be unjustified in making my claim are that Wikipedia contains nothing but facts. It has the added benefit of showing that such a line of discussion is irrelevant as it has no bearing on the central point other than to show I dislike Wikipedia as a reference due to the higher than what I consider acceptable likelihood that the reference contains factual errors. So I must ask how does that make ‘ME’ the moron? After all I see no attempts to argue against the points made in the link I sent?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 20.3.1.1.1
            11 May 2015 at 8:36 pm

            Don’t you? I can see several that were made before you even linked it. The most telling one regards its* false premise: that the only possible interpretation of the term social contract must involve a formal written arrangement between the parties.

            The Wikipedia article describes it as a model, and it might pay you at this point to remember George Box’s famous aphorism about models. Some are useful.

            *let’s abandon all pretence that these arguments are “yours”, eh.

            • Stuart Hawkins 20.3.1.1.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 7:06 pm

              “Don’t you? I can see several that were made before you even linked it.”

              Nobody can fault your active imagination.

              “The most telling one regards its* false premise: that the only possible interpretation of the term social contract must involve a formal written arrangement between the parties.”

              And yet you made no argument to show how it works without explicit consent. The other guy did that, not you, and only after all of this got out of hand.

              “The Wikipedia article describes it as a model, and it might pay you at this point to remember George Box’s famous aphorism about models. Some are useful.”

              Objection 5. shows how that line of argument fails in this discussion

              http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

              “*let’s abandon all pretence that these arguments are “yours”, eh.”

              Arguments that I use in a discussion are termed ‘mine’; that is how you tell the difference between statements I have made and ones others have made. If you think it means something else than that is just another one of your failings.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                12 May 2015 at 7:21 pm

                I see. You’re one of those intelligent morons. The only thing you seem good at is sidelining progress in favour of idiocy. Go start a political movement or an economics department. But please stop pretending that you are anything more than an evangelising priest.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 6:08 pm

                  “I see.”

                  Do you? i wonder how long it takes you to prove that you do not.

                  “You’re one of those intelligent morons.”

                  Do all of you have personal definitions of terms?

                  “The only thing you seem good at is sidelining progress in favour of idiocy.”

                  Yes! Second sentence a new record!

                  What I see is another person making claims and not backing them up.

                  “Go start a political movement or an economics department.”

                  No.

                  “But please stop pretending that you are anything more than an evangelising priest.”

                  Yes an evangelizing priest of the church of reason, logic and truth! I like it! thank you for the inspiration! I shall adopt that description of myself from now on.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 May 2015 at 6:48 pm

                    The Bishop of Banal.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:23 am

                      “The Bishop of Banal.”

                      I wouldn’t say Colonial Rawshark was ‘The Bishop of Banal’; more the ‘Cardinal of Confusion’.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 May 2015 at 9:01 am

                The other guy did that, not you.

                In fact Stuey, McFlock draws your attention to my remarks on the subject only a couple of comments down from here. Your inattention is showing. Again.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 6:09 pm

                  “The other guy did that, not you.

                  In fact Stuey, McFlock draws your attention to my remarks on the subject only a couple of comments down from here. Your inattention is showing. Again.”

                  Yeah, nah. It is just your inability to grasp the discussion.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 May 2015 at 9:16 am

                Objection 5. shows how that line of argument fails in this discussion

                No, it doesn’t Stuey, and will you please pay more attention: we’ve been over this already: false premises, remember?

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 6:12 pm

                  “Objection 5. shows how that line of argument fails in this discussion

                  No, it doesn’t Stuey, and will you please pay more attention: we’ve been over this already: false premises, remember?”

                  All you have done is claim it isn’t correct; by definition that is not proving or disproving anything. By the simple facts of an argument that means you have already lost this argument and any continuation is proof that you are irrational or have an agenda that seeks to get the last word.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 May 2015 at 6:33 pm

                    The false premise being that it is a written document, codified, as McFlock said. We’ve been over this.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      16 May 2015 at 4:55 pm

                      “The false premise being that it is a written document, codified, as McFlock said. We’ve been over this.”

                      The objections on the site deal do not deal with explicit acceptance. They show how ONLY explicit acceptance qualifies as acceptance. This meand the SC can not be considered valid if people have not explicitly accepted it. So what you are saying is that I am right and SC does not exist in the way you claimed it existed (as a justification for government, taxes, regulation s and all).

                      Boom victory for me!!!!

                      See how that works OAB; you need to argue against my points not just make claims.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 May 2015 at 5:40 pm

                      Except I didn’t claim it “justifies” anything, you inattentive bore. I described it as a model.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  17 May 2015 at 10:28 am

                  “Except I didn’t claim it “justifies” anything, you inattentive bore. I described it as a model.”

                  Then why did you claim it as a fact that answered my demand for points justifying government?

                  So were you lying then when you said it justified government or are you lying now when you claim that never was your claim?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    17 May 2015 at 10:53 am

                    Quote me then, you tiresome goatfucker: link (like a flailing failure) to the comment where I say it justifies government, then withdraw, goatfucker, and apologise, goatfucker.

          • McFlock 20.3.1.1.2
            11 May 2015 at 10:47 pm

            “So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.”

            Other than to point out SCT is debunked, no.

            So… no, then.

            “Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have

            No but then I was begging the question. I wanted him to ask.

            So you wanted OAB to ask who had debunked SCT before citing people who had debunked SCT so you answered the question as to who had debunked the theory with a list of labels but no names…
            🙄 wow you’re so super-crafty. /sarc

            “As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.”

            Good another tactic I wanted OAB to try!

            So why did you ignore it every single time OAB and anyone else mentioned it?

            my statement ‘Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?’ is intended (the fact that it actually does so is also good) to point out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for me to be unjustified in making my claim are that Wikipedia contains nothing but facts.

            So you believe that the only source worth linking to is one that is absolutely perfect? But your link at the Trolley problem says that only almost ever SCT argument is wrong, and yet your assertion “This is not the case ANYWHERE in the real world.” means that every SCT argument ever made is wrong. By your logic, the site you’ve repeatedly linked to is a pointless diversion that can be laughed off as irrelevant… well, in your case I agree (it’s full of straw arguments).

            It has the added benefit of showing that such a line of discussion is irrelevant as it has no bearing on the central point other than to show I dislike Wikipedia as a reference due to the higher than what I consider acceptable likelihood that the reference contains factual errors. So I must ask how does that make ‘ME’ the moron? After all I see no attempts to argue against the points made in the link I sent?

            Yeah, I took a while to get past the laughter.

            • Stuart Hawkins 20.3.1.1.2.1
              12 May 2015 at 7:20 pm

              ” “So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.”
              Other than to point out SCT is debunked, no.
              So… no, then. ”

              By definition that would be yes as saying it is SCT is debunked is adressing the contents of the page but you keep trying to alter the truth and meanings of words…

              ” “Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have
              No but then I was begging the question. I wanted him to ask.
              So you wanted OAB to ask who had debunked SCT before citing people who had debunked SCT so you answered the question as to who had debunked the theory with a list of labels but no names…
              🙄 wow you’re so super-crafty. /sarc”

              Well not so much the who as that would be an appeal to authority but more the how as that is the only thing that is relevant.

              “As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.”
              Good another tactic I wanted OAB to try!
              So why did you ignore it every single time OAB and anyone else mentioned it?”

              Because I have only had denial that explicit acceptance is what is given (no alternate) and an appeal to what some economists think about SCT (an appeal to authority). i can not argue against points people do not make. Simply saying no that isn’t true isn’t making an argument it is blank denial.

              “my statement ‘Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?’ is intended (the fact that it actually does so is also good) to point out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for me to be unjustified in making my claim are that Wikipedia contains nothing but facts.
              So you believe that the only source worth linking to is one that is absolutely perfect?”

              I never said that either but I think you know that…

              “But your link at the Trolley problem says that only almost ever SCT argument is wrong, and yet your assertion “This is not the case ANYWHERE in the real world.” means that every SCT argument ever made is wrong.”

              No because we are talking in a two different senses; I made an empirical claim while the article leaves the logical possibility that people can actually accept a social contract (just not in any of the ways the objections deny).

              “By your logic, the site you’ve repeatedly linked to is a pointless diversion that can be laughed off as irrelevant… well, in your case I agree (it’s full of straw arguments).”

              Only if you don’t understand logic and I think you have shown you do not. My statement is that there exists no ‘binding’ SC not that there can not be a binding SC.

              • McFlock …
                12 May 2015 at 9:28 pm

                ” “So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.”

                Other than to point out SCT is debunked, no.

                So… no, then. ”

                By definition that would be yes as saying it is SCT is debunked is adressing the contents of the page but you keep trying to alter the truth and meanings of words…

                Then why did you say “no” – do you not understand tthe difference between “no” and “yes”? And simply saying ‘SCT has been debunked’ is not addressing the contents of the wikipedia article at all.

                ” “Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have

                No but then I was begging the question. I wanted him to ask.

                So you wanted OAB to ask who had debunked SCT before citing people who had debunked SCT so you answered the question as to who had debunked the theory with a list of labels but no names…
                🙄 wow you’re so super-crafty. /sarc”

                Well not so much the who as that would be an appeal to authority but more the how as that is the only thing that is relevant.
                So maybe rather than laying traps all the time, you should actually concentrate on the discussion. And actually if you knew the basics of human communication, you’d know that asking “who has debunked it” has an implicit continuance “and how and where did they do it”.

                “As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.”

                Good another tactic I wanted OAB to try!

                So why did you ignore it every single time OAB and anyone else mentioned it?”

                Because I have only had denial that explicit acceptance is what is given (no alternate) and an appeal to what some economists think about SCT (an appeal to authority). i can not argue against points people do not make. Simply saying no that isn’t true isn’t making an argument it is blank denial.

                lol but simply saying that something has been debunked does count as an argument? Hypocrite.
                Besides, once again you’re ignoring the many, many arguments people have made in the thread. Perhaps you missed them.

                “my statement ‘Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?’ is intended (the fact that it actually does so is also good) to point out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for me to be unjustified in making my claim are that Wikipedia contains nothing but facts.

                So you believe that the only source worth linking to is one that is absolutely perfect?”

                I never said that either but I think you know that…

                So your criticism of wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the argument. Even though the contents of the wikipedia article is competely relevant, and you haven’t addressed the contents at all

                “But your link at the Trolley problem says that only almost ever SCT argument is wrong, and yet your assertion “This is not the case ANYWHERE in the real world.” means that every SCT argument ever made is wrong.”

                No because we are talking in a two different senses; I made an empirical claim while the article leaves the logical possibility that people can actually accept a social contract (just not in any of the ways the objections deny).

                Riiiight.

                “By your logic, the site you’ve repeatedly linked to is a pointless diversion that can be laughed off as irrelevant… well, in your case I agree (it’s full of straw arguments).”

                Only if you don’t understand logic and I think you have shown you do not. My statement is that there exists no ‘binding’ SC not that there can not be a binding SC.

                Actualy, your initial statement was pretty categorical, and didn’t include any qualification like “binding”. And then of course there’s the entire issue of the fact that you still don’t understand what the social contract actually is.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  15 May 2015 at 6:37 pm

                  ” “So you did not actually address, at any time, the contents of the wikipedia page.”
                  Other than to point out SCT is debunked, no.
                  So… no, then. ”
                  By definition that would be yes as saying it is SCT is debunked is adressing the contents of the page but you keep trying to alter the truth and meanings of words…”

                  Do you know the meaning a sentence of the form.

                  Other than x, no. (I.e. Did you murder Bob? “Other than stopping his heart by stabbing him in the aorta so that he bled out and then severing his head, no I did not murder Bob.”)

                  It means that the scope of the answer no is excluding the conditional that makes it a yes. Then when we discuss the topic with no such conditional included it is still consistent to discuss the answer as having been yes. Please study logic and semantics it will help show you why you are wrong

                  “Then why did you say “no” – do you not understand tthe difference between “no” and “yes”? ”

                  See above.

                  “And simply saying ‘SCT has been debunked’ is not addressing the contents of the wikipedia article at all.”

                  Are the contents of the page SCT or do they pertain to SCT in some manner? If so then the utterance ‘SCT has been debunked’ by definition addresses the contents of the wikipedia article. That is how words work…

                  ” “Then, in answer to “who has debunked it” you gave a list of labels but no actual evidence that they have
                  No but then I was begging the question. I wanted him to ask.
                  So you wanted OAB to ask who had debunked SCT before citing people who had debunked SCT so you answered the question as to who had debunked the theory with a list of labels but no names…
                  🙄 wow you’re so super-crafty. /sarc”
                  Well not so much the who as that would be an appeal to authority but more the how as that is the only thing that is relevant.
                  So maybe rather than laying traps all the time, you should actually concentrate on the discussion.”

                  Laying logical traps is a method of discussion…

                  “And actually if you knew the basics of human communication, you’d know that asking “who has debunked it” has an implicit continuance “and how and where did they do it”.”

                  Really? This is a text based discussion and I want explicit answers due to the fact that OAB and others have explicitly denied logically required implications of their statements on multiple occasions. To now say I should respond to the implications of statements is a little rich.

                  “As for your argument about signing a social contract, that’s where we get into the codified vs customary debate. I suppose that as a libertarian your social skills might not extend to understanding social norms and dealing with people without written contracts.”
                  Good another tactic I wanted OAB to try!
                  So why did you ignore it every single time OAB and anyone else mentioned it?”
                  Because I have only had denial that explicit acceptance is what is given (no alternate) and an appeal to what some economists think about SCT (an appeal to authority). i can not argue against points people do not make. Simply saying no that isn’t true isn’t making an argument it is blank denial.
                  lol but simply saying that something has been debunked does count as an argument? Hypocrite.”

                  No and I never claimed it did; therefore it is impossible for me to be a hypocrite because of this.

                  “Besides, once again you’re ignoring the many, many arguments people have made in the thread. Perhaps you missed them.”

                  Nope I answered them.

                  “my statement ‘Are you claiming Wikipedia has nothing but facts?’ is intended (the fact that it actually does so is also good) to point out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for me to be unjustified in making my claim are that Wikipedia contains nothing but facts.
                  So you believe that the only source worth linking to is one that is absolutely perfect?”
                  I never said that either but I think you know that…
                  So your criticism of wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the argument.”

                  No it speaks to OAB’s claim that his link was fact because it was a wikipedia page. I wanted him to give the supporting argument for SCT and he did not and saying that showed through implication it was unsubstantiated.

                  “Even though the contents of the wikipedia article is competely relevant, and you haven’t addressed the contents at all”

                  http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/why-social-contract-arguments-are.html

                  That is what the objections on this site are; they show why nothing short of explicit consent justifies a SC and the limitations of an SC even if it is justified.

                  “But your link at the Trolley problem says that only almost ever SCT argument is wrong, and yet your assertion “This is not the case ANYWHERE in the real world.” means that every SCT argument ever made is wrong.
                  No because we are talking in a two different senses; I made an empirical claim while the article leaves the logical possibility that people can actually accept a social contract (just not in any of the ways the objections deny).
                  Riiiight.”

                  Yes that is true; if not show me how it is wrong.

                  “By your logic, the site you’ve repeatedly linked to is a pointless diversion that can be laughed off as irrelevant… well, in your case I agree (it’s full of straw arguments).”
                  Only if you don’t understand logic and I think you have shown you do not. My statement is that there exists no ‘binding’ SC not that there can not be a binding SC.
                  Actualy, your initial statement was pretty categorical, and didn’t include any qualification like “binding”.”

                  Actually if you knew the basics of human communication; you’d know that discussing the real world justification of government with SCT has the implicit continuance that a SC is ‘binding’.

                  Funny how you think I should take the implications of statements into consideration but refuse to do so yourself.

                  “And then of course there’s the entire issue of the fact that you still don’t understand what the social contract actually is.”

                  Which is denied by the fact I know what the objections to SCT are.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 May 2015 at 6:43 pm

                    binding

                    Nope. Customary. A limited model of actual human behaviour.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:29 am

                      So totally irrelevant to justifying government and why I need to accept or ‘fuck off’ as you put it?

                      Thanks for admitting that taxation is unjustified.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 May 2015 at 10:43 am

                      No: stop putting words in my mouth, you tiresome goatfucker.

                    • Stuart Hawkins …
                      18 May 2015 at 6:14 am

                      “Nope. Customary. A limited model of actual human behaviour.
                      So totally irrelevant to justifying government and why I need to accept or ‘fuck off’ as you put it?
                      Thanks for admitting that taxation is unjustified.
                      No: stop putting words in my mouth, you tiresome goatfucker.”

                      So if it is a ‘limited model of actual human behavior’ how does it justify government or have ANY relevance to this discussion at all?

                      The answer to that is you have switched to this after being soundly trounced in this whole argument. Somehow you think that will save you but in reality it just meas that you have no justification for the government being forced upon us and no argument for why we shouldn’t change.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 May 2015 at 8:07 am

                      “Switched” – inattentive gimp – it’s what I’ve been saying all along, you only just grasped it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 May 2015 at 8:12 am

                      you have no justification for the government being forced upon us and no argument for why we shouldn’t change.

                      If at some point in the future you get your head around what I have been saying, we can move on to debunking your pathetic whining. If.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 May 2015 at 8:43 am

                      Justification for government No.1.

                      People must be protected from Libertarian dogshit like Stuart Hawkins who do not respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  21. ropata 21
    11 May 2015 at 8:32 pm

    It is now depressingly obvious that there is a mad fraction of the population who will expend hours of their time arguing about why it is better for the rich to pay no tax and the poor to live in cars and children to go hungry.

    This is a moral problem. Some arseholes value money over people.

    • Stuart Hawkins 21.1
      12 May 2015 at 7:29 pm

      “It is now depressingly obvious that there is a mad fraction of the population who will expend hours of their time arguing about why it is better for the rich to pay no tax and the poor to live in cars and children to go hungry.”

      Again that is Argumentum ad Misericordiam at its finest (worst)

      “This is a moral problem. Some arseholes value money over people.”

      No the problem is some people value their desires more than logic, reason and human rights. That would be you in-case you were wondering. Helping others is by definition supererogatory and as such there is no moral deficit by not helping and as such no logical or moral argument to force people to help.

      I will not go into my own personal views on helping others as they are irrelevant to this or any discussion we will have.

      • Colonial Rawshark 21.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 7:32 pm

        You want a debate on the future of human society but you want it centred in a world view where there is no morality and intrinsic value given to that society?

        You’re a fucking idiot. And an arse covering arsehole to boot.

        I will not go into my own personal views on helping others as they are irrelevant to this or any discussion we will have.

        Who made you the fucking boss and all seeing oracle of this debate?

        And what are you trying to hide about your views on helping human beings?

        • Stuart Hawkins 21.1.1.1
          15 May 2015 at 6:44 pm

          “You want a debate on the future of human society but you want it centred in a world view where there is no morality and intrinsic value given to that society?”

          No but then i do not know of anyone arguing this, only the straw man you are putting forward.

          “You’re a fucking idiot.”

          If I am an idiot how come I have outsmarted you?

          “And an arse covering arsehole to boot.”

          Come now; I really don’t think that is medically possible…

          “I will not go into my own personal views on helping others as they are irrelevant to this or any discussion we will have.
          Who made you the fucking boss and all seeing oracle of this debate?”

          By definition the discussion of the justification of government as being SCT does not include personal views on helping others. So nobody but then again i never said i was; I did say logic and reason have shown that it is irrelevant.

          “And what are you trying to hide about your views on helping human beings?”

          Still irrelevant but if you really want to know I think it is supererogatory.

          • RedLogix 21.1.1.1.1
            16 May 2015 at 3:21 pm

            Oh dear. The simple reason why a binding SC must exist – because some people would try to participate in the collective benefits of the SC but avoid paying for them. In other words – cheat in order to maximise their personal benefit.

            Which is why we have laws – you know – rules that apply to everyone. For instance the law about murder is binding on you, even if you personally never signed an agreement or contract to that effect. It is implicitly binding on you by the simple fact of your citizenship. Nor do you get to have the option to opt out of the law because you personally believe for instance that you are God and have the right to go around killing people.

            All collective agreements are:

            1. General in nature
            2. Universally binding
            3. Implicit ie there is no specific action which triggers their existence

            Just because there is not a piece of paper you signed, does not mean that a contract does not exist. That is a foolishly literal interpretation of contract law that any 101 student should be able to disabuse you of.

            Even so it is quite wrong to confuse them with private contracts which serve a different purpose:

            1. They are usually very specific in nature, detailing who is doing what, where and when
            2. They only apply to the parties involved and there is usually arrangements for default or termination
            3. And while contract law is replete with examples of “implied contract” – there is always some action or event which triggers the existence of the contract.

            The usual problem with the libertarian argument is that it is narrowly captured by the purpose of private contracts – while remaining obdurately blind to the complementary character and purpose of social contracts. For all your faith and fervour in the power of the former, you are really saying nothing about the quite different nature of the latter.

            • Stuart Hawkins 21.1.1.1.1.1
              16 May 2015 at 4:51 pm

              “Oh dear. The simple reason why a binding SC must exist – because some people would try to participate in the collective benefits of the SC but avoid paying for them. In other words – cheat in order to maximise their personal benefit.”

              Not an justification for SC. You can’t say the system is justified by not being able to restrict the goods and services it can only be able to provide if it is justified. Learn what a circular argument is and try not to make them in future.

              “Which is why we have laws – you know – rules that apply to everyone.”

              Which the system I propose also has… just that they do not draw justification from SCT.

              “For instance the law about murder is binding on you, even if you personally never signed an agreement or contract to that effect.”

              Yes but not because of a government telling me it is prohibited; that comes from human rights.

              “It is implicitly binding on you by the simple fact of your citizenship.”

              Nope it is binding by the facts of reality and reason. Your definition means that you must accept the legitimacy of government pogroms…

              “Nor do you get to have the option to opt out of the law because you personally believe for instance that you are God and have the right to go around killing people.”

              STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

              “All collective agreements are:

              1. General in nature”

              So no actual substance, no parameters and no actual limitations etc. You just proved my statement above applies and that you have claimed that the holocaust was justified by the SC of Germany.

              “2. Universally binding”

              Even when we can prove it unacceptable as was the case above?

              “3. Implicit ie there is no specific action which triggers their existence”

              So made up bullshit then? oops everyone just entered into a collective agreement to be my slave forever with no opt out ever and did so with no specific action at all. Thanks guys.

              “Just because there is not a piece of paper you signed, does not mean that a contract does not exist.”

              Kind of does…

              Contracts need…
              Offer (never happened)
              Acceptance (No specific action)
              Consideration (no specific action)

              So nope, no contract.

              “That is a foolishly literal interpretation of contract law that any 101 student should be able to disabuse you of.”

              And saying acceptance does not require any specific action means you have just accepted any SC I can dream up; including the one everyone just accepted to be my slave.

              So shut up slave.

              “Even so it is quite wrong to confuse them with private contracts which serve a different purpose:”

              No it isn’t as what you described is totally meaningless as it justifies everything and has no criteria AT ALL in which it can be invalid. This means it is a load of old bollocks.

              “1. They are usually very specific in nature, detailing who is doing what, where and when
              2. They only apply to the parties involved and there is usually arrangements for default or termination
              3. And while contract law is replete with examples of “implied contract” – there is always some action or event which triggers the existence of the contract.”

              Justify the contract as you claim it exists?
              Explain how it is actually a contract in ANY understanding of the word?
              Also disprove my version of the contract; that is that it has all the same characteristics but it is of the form that everyone is my slave.

              “The usual problem with the libertarian argument is that it is narrowly captured by the purpose of private contracts”

              I have never seen an argument for libertarianism that does this and the fact that you mention this at all implies you are trying for a straw man argument. (That is a bit generous it actually has no other possible reading at all)

              “– while remaining obdurately blind to the complementary character and purpose of social contracts.”

              Which just don’t need to be accepted and have absolutely no limits at all. Thanks for the waste of time your comments are invalid.

              “For all your faith and fervour in the power of the former, you are really saying nothing about the quite different nature of the latter.”

              And you haven’t said anything at all apart from ‘SCT means whatever we want it to mean and is accepted by everyone without any action, thought or anything at all even by those that explicitly deny acceptance’.

              Thanks for the laughs though, very entertaining.

              • RedLogix …
                16 May 2015 at 6:03 pm

                So no actual substance, no parameters and no actual limitations etc. You just proved my statement above applies and that you have claimed that the holocaust was justified by the SC of Germany.

                The parameters of the SC in any given state are indeed set by public discourse and the resulting political process. This is how laws are determined and brought into effect. It is also how events such as the Holocaust come about.

                At no point did I suggest that any form of contract is necessarily moral or justifiable. Clearly both political and private contracts can result in grievous and morally repugnant outcomes – but that does not invalidate the notion of a contract at all. It merely emphasises the importance of the process by which they are negotiated and implemented.

                And saying acceptance does not require any specific action means you have just accepted any SC I can dream up

                If indeed by “I can dream up” you mean the social and political process of the current social order then indeed that is precisely what is in force. I would in fact be your slave. For example the Romans ran exactly that kind of social contract for centuries and everybody who lived in that era thought it perfectly normal.

                But all this does is again emphasise exactly how important politics really is in getting the outcomes which are congruent with your value system. It says nothing at all about the existence or otherwise of the social contract which delivers them.

                I have never seen an argument for libertarianism that does this and the fact that you mention this at all implies you are trying for a straw man argument.

                Well you and I live in different worlds. The principle plank on which ALL libertarian argument I have ever seen rests on the primacy of private property and private contracts. So you have genuinely lost me there.

                ‘SCT means whatever we want it to mean and is accepted by everyone without any action, thought or anything at all even by those that explicitly deny acceptance’.

                Again I would reinforce the point that it is a mistake to look at the specific characteristic of private contracts and then argue that because the social contract is different in nature it cannot therefore exist or is meaningless.

                I regularly ride a bicycle to work. It’s ideal for that journey – but when I cross the Tasman I fly an Airbus. They are both forms of transport, but your argument amounts to saying that because the bike does not look like the Airbus – the Airbus is therefore non-existent. You would never try to put forward such an argument because when talking about concrete objects it is impossible to deny the existence of something that everyone can point to and touch.

                By contrast a ‘contract’ is an entirely abstract notion. No-one can actually touch one or produce an incontrovertible physical evidence of one. (Even when a private contract does exist in paper form – it only has significance if everyone agrees to be bound by all the abstractions we call ‘contract law’.)

                So all you are doing here is exploiting a simple trick of insisting that one form of abstraction (private contracts) have existence, and that another (social contracts) – do not, and then demanding we provide concrete, tangible evidence of something that by definition can have none. No more in fact than you can provide the same standard of concrete evidence that private contracts exist.

                • Stuart Hawkins …
                  17 May 2015 at 10:48 am

                  “So no actual substance, no parameters and no actual limitations etc. You just proved my statement above applies and that you have claimed that the holocaust was justified by the SC of Germany.
                  The parameters of the SC in any given state are indeed set by public discourse and the resulting political process. This is how laws are determined and brought into effect. It is also how events such as the Holocaust come about.”

                  So you do claim the Holocaust is justified?

                  “At no point did I suggest that any form of contract is necessarily moral or justifiable.”

                  Then what relevance is it? I kind of assume you think there is some so please tell me otherwise you are just spouting hot air.

                  “Clearly both political and private contracts can result in grievous and morally repugnant outcomes”

                  Not freely entered into ones…

                  “– but that does not invalidate the notion of a contract at all. It merely emphasises the importance of the process by which they are negotiated and implemented.”

                  So voluntary ones then.

                  “And saying acceptance does not require any specific action means you have just accepted any SC I can dream up”

                  Yeah it does as there is NO SPECIFIC ACTION!

                  “If indeed by “I can dream up” you mean the social and political process of the current social order then indeed that is precisely what is in force. I would in fact be your slave. For example the Romans ran exactly that kind of social contract for centuries and everybody who lived in that era thought it perfectly normal.”

                  But logic and reason shows it wrong. Get to the point.

                  “But all this does is again emphasise exactly how important politics really is in getting the outcomes which are congruent with your value system. It says nothing at all about the existence or otherwise of the social contract which delivers them.”

                  No it does not it just shows that you claim politics is important by not understanding what system I propose. (Hint I am begging the question)

                  “I have never seen an argument for libertarianism that does this and the fact that you mention this at all implies you are trying for a straw man argument.
                  Well you and I live in different worlds.”

                  Nope.

                  “The principle plank on which ALL libertarian argument I have ever seen rests on the primacy of private property and private contracts.”

                  So your lack of experience and imagination means that is all there can be?

                  “So you have genuinely lost me there.”

                  Then ask for clarification.

                  ‘SCT means whatever we want it to mean and is accepted by everyone without any action, thought or anything at all even by those that explicitly deny acceptance’.
                  Again I would reinforce the point that it is a mistake to look at the specific characteristic of private contracts and then argue that because the social contract is different in nature it cannot therefore exist or is meaningless.”

                  So you can just claim it is and never need to explain how or why? Even when directly asked to do so? Wow you really are irrational.

                  “I regularly ride a bicycle to work. It’s ideal for that journey – but when I cross the Tasman I fly an Airbus.”

                  Relevance?

                  “They are both forms of transport, but your argument amounts to saying that because the bike does not look like the Airbus – the Airbus is therefore non-existent.”

                  Not at all; your argument focuses on irrelevant characteristics and tries to draw analogy from them but I am afraid you failed to show any relevance. This analogy shows that both allow travel (are contracts) but have characteristics (terms, limitations etc) of travel that lend themselves to different purposes. So rather than showing how the different types of contract work you have, at best, given an argument for why accepting different terms of contracts for different purposes is a good idea. But thanks for trying, that at least is refreshing.

                  “You would never try to put forward such an argument because when talking about concrete objects it is impossible to deny the existence of something that everyone can point to and touch.”

                  See above for how your analogy fails.

                  “By contrast a ‘contract’ is an entirely abstract notion.”

                  That has characteristics that make it a contract and SC fails to have these characteristics therefore it can not be called a contract.

                  “No-one can actually touch one or produce an incontrovertible physical evidence of one. (Even when a private contract does exist in paper form – it only has significance if everyone agrees to be bound by all the abstractions we call ‘contract law’.)”

                  So what? This is irrelevant to the discussion and contract law isn’t necessary; all that is needed is a rational understanding of what the agreement is.

                  “So all you are doing here is exploiting a simple trick of insisting that one form of abstraction (private contracts) have existence, and that another (social contracts) – do not, and then demanding we provide concrete, tangible evidence of something that by definition can have none. No more in fact than you can provide the same standard of concrete evidence that private contracts exist.”

                  No I am trying to get them to defend why a SC is justification for government. That is how this whole thread started.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    17 May 2015 at 10:54 am

                    you don’t believe in government and you don’t believe in a social contract, yet you still believe in engaging with others in the context of a community with rules and forms and standards and reciprocity.

                    What is with that?

                    Why don’t you just go away and live to your principles?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    17 May 2015 at 10:59 am

                    Try as you might, no-one can be bothered defending your red herrings, although there is significant concern for your pet goat.

                    • RedLogix …
                      17 May 2015 at 1:38 pm

                      It’s like talking to a mentally defective child OAB. Honestly. You know me well enough to know that as with all debates here I can be as caustic as the next when I need to be – but generally I hold back from the ad-homs because they simply don’t work as a debating tool.

                      But on reading this guy’s reply above – it’s like some bizarre and unfortunate form of brain damage he’s acquired from reading too much Randian drivel.

  22. les 22
    16 May 2015 at 8:23 am

    fuck me I’ve run out of…popcorn!