Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: BooBerry! Have your guesses at the ready! (Read 7263 times)
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I'll be there at around five - what time do you usually get there at? I was gonna break out the girls and dress erotic, but that would just be so wrong... I toned it down and am coming in jeans and a tshirt that I won at the Liberty Forum. This is so you'll be able to recognize me, my shirt says "I Have a Secret" on the front. I have two small braids in my hair (the rest is down.) I'll be with Ron and a few of the Little Minnesota folks. I'm so happy to be meeting you today!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
I'll be there at around five - what time do you usually get there at? I was gonna break out the girls and dress erotic, but that would just be so wrong... I toned it down and am coming in jeans and a tshirt that I won at the Liberty Forum. This is so you'll be able to recognize me, my shirt says "I Have a Secret" on the front. I have two small braids in my hair (the rest is down.) I'll be with Ron and a few of the Little Minnesota folks. I'm so happy to be meeting you today! Ron Helwig? Just ask him to point me out! I am probably gonna have a date before so I may get there around 7pm. I am devastatingly handsome, witty and charming... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I'll be there at around five - what time do you usually get there at? I was gonna break out the girls and dress erotic, but that would just be so wrong... I toned it down and am coming in jeans and a tshirt that I won at the Liberty Forum. This is so you'll be able to recognize me, my shirt says "I Have a Secret" on the front. I have two small braids in my hair (the rest is down.) I'll be with Ron and a few of the Little Minnesota folks. I'm so happy to be meeting you today! Ron Helwig? Just ask him to point me out! I am probably gonna have a date before so I may get there around 7pm. I am devastatingly handsome, witty and charming... Bring you date with you so I can play footsies with her under the table while you babble on about economic rent. I'm wearing clogs now so that I can quietly shuffle them off undetected. I'm obnoxiously irritating, have a yankee accent that you'll hear before you even enter the place, and I'm a six point nine outta ten by most men's 'standards', although I do have moments of eleven and twelve, if the lighting is right (re: DIM. hahaha!) I have 38C's and a butt that yells out to the eyes 'smack me.' Perhaps I will throw myself over your knees if you say something that hurts the part of my brain that desires, so desperately, a logical, peaceful world.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Oh, and hey, is it you that gets to sticky stuff on these here 'commons' ?
THAT AIN'T FAIR!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Oh, and hey, is it you that gets to sticky stuff on these here 'commons' ?
THAT AIN'T FAIR!
"sticky stuff" what ARE you referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Oh, and hey, is it you that gets to sticky stuff on these here 'commons' ?
THAT AIN'T FAIR!
"sticky stuff" what ARE you referring to? lol  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I may get there around 7pm.
You were worth the torture of thinking I was being 'stood up' by making me 'sweat it out' until a little after 8 p.m. ! It was awesome to meet you - thank you for one of my favorite nights of this year (so far!) Remember this... only one philosophy/ideology wins this time... the battle ain't eternal, as you know, but it didn't end last night. Only one of us (that would be me) has the absolutes understood and doesn't deviate from them. Much as you will try to 'insert' that (re: foundation of principles) into your philosophy, it is not (and never can be in order for your 'vision' to be achieved) the core of your mindset/heartset, as you have selected the laws of nature and 'reason' BEFORE principles to be the formula/equation. That breaks universal code, and so, because of the element of force that becomes an 'absolute' in your theory, unfortunate as that 'absolute' might be to swallow for those (re: you and those like you) who were born with the foundation/core of principles you actually do want to state and claim as your own as well as abide by... you will never be able to make peace with that conflict, nor will the state's, nation's or world's population of individuals (whom only forfeit for brief timeframes via their docile nature - until the point your 'philosophy' is so close to achieving, when the hostility and conflict of principles is too much, at which point they do revolt, outta sheer instinct to survive, as well as, much as you won't understand this right now, to PROTECT THOSE PRINCIPLES, TO DEFEND THEM AND TO LIVE BY THEM.) Cuz that's how powerful those principles are, BooBerry. And you know it. It isn't that I *personally* am a challenging, tough opponent, ya know... it's those principles you're actually up against, and your philosophy can not 'beat' them. And, as I, standing up for them, so firmly know... without any doubt whatsoever that in the end, it isn't *I* who actually wins (but I will accept it as a win, haha)... it's both of us, because your core IS the same as mine. We ARE all equal in that sense, no matter how much you might stray from it or try to 'reason' it away through intellectual ideas you hope to see 'implemented' that defy that core. And, as *I* am not your actual opponent... and because I've known, all along, pookie, who/what you're actually up against and struggling with, it makes the whole thing all the more interesting to witness. Because I know your defiance and confidence - and I also know the weaknesses, flaws and fraility of the entire journey. I've been there, ya know - and then some. I knew you'd find the difference in Grumpy Old Neighbor's chatter. You pegged it (re: the difference.) I'll type up that story at some point to conclude it for Ivy in that thread. Thanks again for an excellent time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
You were worth the torture of thinking I was being 'stood up' by making me 'sweat it out' until a little after 8 p.m. ! Hmmm...I texted another left-libertarian just as I was walking in the door at 7:40pm to see if he was going to be there. I did chat with a guy who I had met at the alternative expo who just moved here before Seth saw me for the intro (what a reception I got from you!). I thought it would be fun to build a little anticipation... It was awesome to meet you - thank you for one of my favorite nights of this year (so far!) Ditto! Much as you will try to 'insert' that (re: foundation of principles) into your philosophy, it is not (and never can be in order for your 'vision' to be achieved) the core of your mindset/heartset, as you have selected the laws of nature and 'reason' BEFORE principles to be the formula/equation. As I said last night, I believe I have derived a universal principle that informs Locke's NAP because he didn't. By the way, when you say (about JCs universal principle) "no lying, cheating or stealing" that is essentially saying "no fraud" and when you say "no killing" that is essentially say "no initiation of force". The universal principle derive that informed Locke was based not on the "laws of nature" (and as you have pointed out has to transcend all "cultures") as observing solely the natural world sans people but rather "human nature" and what separates us (human beings) from the natural world is the ability to reason. The two aspects of human nature that the philosopher John Locke used are i ndependence and equality. This "law of nature" or natural moral law for people is formulated by rules that make up the universal principle. The ethic assigns the moral values of good, evil, and neutral to all human acts. But where do these values come from? The premise of independence, that persons think and feel independently, implies that values are ultimately subjective, coming from individual desires and feelings. The premise of human equality gives these values an equal status. The universal principle's rule for moral goodness is that acts which are welcomed benefits to others are morally good. Helping another person the way that person wants to be helped is a good act. If you think you are doing something for another's own good, but he does not think it's good for him, then by the universal principle, it is not good. The rule for evil is more complicated, because there are two types of acts that individuals feel are personally bad. One is an offense that exists within the subject's mind, and the other is an invasion into the person's body and possessions, thus involving more than just his mind. For example, if someone wears a T-shirt with a message that some find displeasing, that is an offense, since whether one is pleased or displeased depends on one's personal viewpoint. In contrast, if one person shoots a bullet into another person's body, that is an unwelcomed invasion. For the universal principle, only unwelcomed invasions are evil, while mere offenses are morally neutral. Also, acts which only affect yourself are either neutral or good, but not evil, since there is no invasion into another's domain. We now have the three basic rules of the universal principle: Acts are good if and only if they are welcomed benefits. Acts are evil if they coercively harm others as invasions. All other acts are neutral. A society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal principle, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. The universal principle also tells us what our human or natural rights are: we have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm. We have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor. But self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources. The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits of nature other than our own bodies. These benefits are manifested in the economic rent that folks bid to use nature. So equality is satisfied only if communities share the economic rents due to nature and community - not human labor. The universal principal therefore prescribes a fiscal policy of public and community revenue from economic rent, along with voluntary user fees. The taxation of labor and produced goods is an invasion into what properly belongs to the producers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
You were worth the torture of thinking I was being 'stood up' by making me 'sweat it out' until a little after 8 p.m. ! Hmmm...I texted another left-libertarian just as I was walking in the door at 7:40pm to see if he was going to be there. I did chat with a guy who I had met at the alternative expo who just moved here before Seth saw me for the intro (what a reception I got from you!). I thought it would be fun to build a little anticipation... It was awesome to meet you - thank you for one of my favorite nights of this year (so far!) Ditto! Much as you will try to 'insert' that (re: foundation of principles) into your philosophy, it is not (and never can be in order for your 'vision' to be achieved) the core of your mindset/heartset, as you have selected the laws of nature and 'reason' BEFORE principles to be the formula/equation. As I said last night, I believe I have derived a universal principle that informs Locke's NAP because he didn't. By the way, when you say (about JCs universal principle) "no lying, cheating or stealing" that is essentially saying "no fraud" and when you say "no killing" that is essentially say "no initiation of force". The universal principle derive that informed Locke was based not on the "laws of nature" (and as you have pointed out has to transcend all "cultures") as observing solely the natural world sans people but rather "human nature" and what separates us (human beings) from the natural world is the ability to reason. The two aspects of human nature that the philosopher John Locke used are i ndependence and equality. This "law of nature" or natural moral law for people is formulated by rules that make up the universal principle. The ethic assigns the moral values of good, evil, and neutral to all human acts. But where do these values come from? The premise of independence, that persons think and feel independently, implies that values are ultimately subjective, coming from individual desires and feelings. The premise of human equality gives these values an equal status. The universal principle's rule for moral goodness is that acts which are welcomed benefits to others are morally good. Helping another person the way that person wants to be helped is a good act. If you think you are doing something for another's own good, but he does not think it's good for him, then by the universal principle, it is not good. The rule for evil is more complicated, because there are two types of acts that individuals feel are personally bad. One is an offense that exists within the subject's mind, and the other is an invasion into the person's body and possessions, thus involving more than just his mind. For example, if someone wears a T-shirt with a message that some find displeasing, that is an offense, since whether one is pleased or displeased depends on one's personal viewpoint. In contrast, if one person shoots a bullet into another person's body, that is an unwelcomed invasion. For the universal principle, only unwelcomed invasions are evil, while mere offenses are morally neutral. Also, acts which only affect yourself are either neutral or good, but not evil, since there is no invasion into another's domain. We now have the three basic rules of the universal principle: Acts are good if and only if they are welcomed benefits. Acts are evil if they coercively harm others as invasions. All other acts are neutral. A society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal principle, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. The universal principle also tells us what our human or natural rights are: we have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm. We have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor. But self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources. The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits of nature other than our own bodies. These benefits are manifested in the economic rent that folks bid to use nature. So equality is satisfied only if communities share the economic rents due to nature and community - not human labor. The universal principal therefore prescribes a fiscal policy of public and community revenue from economic rent, along with voluntary user fees. The taxation of labor and produced goods is an invasion into what properly belongs to the producers. Boy, am I gonna rip this crap up to shreds when I'm in a fiestier mood... I give you my word, I will come back to this gigantic pile of goofy intellectual yippity yap you just wrote and strip it down naked and spank the hee-ha outta it. Piece by piece, one gigantic bare-handed smack at a time (slow like, so it really stings the bgsus outta ya, each and every 'whap.') But you will have to wait for it - like I did for you. Patiently ... (jumping around and such, yelling out WendellBerry, but patient none the less!) I'm very mellow/content today and in a pretty profoundly quiet-thinking-mode after a very, very long and serious political discussion this afternoon with a soon-to-be-early-mover freestater, and I know as more move here, the spirit of the movement grows stronger, not only in the people it brings here, but in the hearts and minds of those who were already native to here who have witnessed, in their lifetimes, the 'changes' New Hampshire has been assaulted with and who can no longer tolerate the horrendous direction this state, let alone this nation, is going in. By the way, my right nipple kept popping up for no reason today - I think you broke it, damn you, BooBerry! :p  We'll get back to this at some point - for now, my brain is organizing some important stuff and is temporarily 'not available' for this Locke nonsense. I'm glad you wrote it, though - you make this so freakin' ... pleasurable! Have a sweet night and a wonderful tomorrow, too! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
HEY! Wait a freakin' minute here... YOU ARE THE FREAKING GUY WHO GETS TO STICKY STUFF IN THE COMMONS! I freakin' KNEW IT! Oh, this crap ain't flyin', this is total dictatorship of the commons!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Giggle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Giggle.
You wouldn't have been giggling if you knew the way I had to defend your honor at Murphy's Tuesday night. I think you would feel indebted to me...maybe share a little economic rent? (lol) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Giggle.
Like a girl, I bet - hahaha. What are you doing in the commons? Shouldn't you be posting topics like "NH will be a Democrat majority by the year 2010" out in a general area of this forum to freak out potential movers, you self-sabbotaging maniac? Why did you give WendellBerry sticky powers in the commons?! Why'd you even banish/censor the guy anyways? I disagree with EVERYONE on this - WendellBerry is the best thing to happen to this forum, don't any of you knuckleheads understand WHY? And where is my YES?! GIVE ME THE ABSOLUTE 'YES', Mr. Jason! Please? Don't make me beg anymore than I already have! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Giggle.
You wouldn't have been giggling if you knew the way I had to defend your honor at Murphy's Tuesday night. I think you would feel indebted to me...maybe share a little economic rent? (lol) What the whatty what are you talking about? I didn't say anything dishonorable about Jason! You're just trying to make him think I talked smack about him and I didn't! All I said was when you said he was a Christian, I said "NO, he is NOT a Christian!" Then you went and insisted it, which led to me yelling a bit and rolling my eyes - that ain't dishonoring him, I have said plenty of times how thankful I am that Jason started this project, and how grateful I am to have his kind of intelligence as part of the mix - I do consider him guilty of treason with his 'ideas' that go against the SOI, but I still have a lot of respect for the guy (and haven't given up on trying to appeal to him to rethink his crummy ideas, too.) Don't even try to get Jason in a fight with me or mad at me or angry at me! (I do a good enough job of that myself, thank you!) Jason, the ONLY thing I said about you at the Taproom was you were not a Christian. That said, perhaps I am wrong... are you a Christian? You don't come across as a Christian to me, with your deviance from the Christian principles and philosophies in your 'new ideas' - this project was a GREAT example of following the principles and philosophy... your other 'work and thoughts' on it, though, are not. If you are a Christian, that would be great - perhaps you should cozy up with the 10C's and think about them for a while before you make any more errors in 'ideas', you're on a slippery slope to deism thinking 'reason' somehow can be 'better' than GOD'S LAW'S - you can not HAVE good REASONING SKILLS without the CORE FOUNDATION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES, MR. SORENS. Think of it in terms of math - you can not even BEGIN to add/subtract/multiply/divide WITHOUT first having numerical designations and terms for those calculations to be activated... why am I even teling you this, YOU KNOW THIS IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN! GOSH DANG IT! Why are so many men in this movement such bubble heads?! I can't believe this crap! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
didn't say anything dishonorable about Jason! I was using the term "defend your honor" in this context as a euphemism - not literally. I do consider him guilty of treason with his 'ideas' that go against the SOI I told you that Jason has been "coming around" to ideas closer to mine and I had been "working on him for 4 years". Evidence... His speech at the Porcfest 2 years ago (?) on Charles Murray's book "In Our Hands" calling for a "basic income guarantee" as a step in the right direction to roll back the state. I had just that Spring made a presentation at the BIG (basic income guarantee) conference in NYC. His belief that property rights are not absolute. Now I didn't really have anything to do with these - it was just a little boastful joke - but I believe it is real. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
