News What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[russ_watters]

Evo, what part of "indistinguishable from legal money" are you missing?

Oh jeez. I don't want to get sucked back into this, but money doesn't just appear spontaneously. It comes from somewhere. When you counterfeit even with no chance of getting caught, you are still stealing. You are stealing from the merchant (that's right, even if the merchant doesn't get caught when he passes the bill from the bank, you're still stealing from him) and you're stealing from the originator of American currency: the government.

Getting caught is not what determines right and wrong.

 

[Evo]

Evo, what part of "indistinguishable from legal money" are you missing?

The "reality" part where the counterfeit money is discovered. And what does this have to do with anything?

By the way, saying I am "just plain wrong" is equivalent to saying that the democratic party is just plain wrong.

Bart, going back through this thread, I honestly can't find anything you've said that is correct. I may have missed a post.

My ultimate point here (did you know?) is that government's duty includes more than protecting the three basic rights, and in particular that the government's duty is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Do you in plain faith believe that both of these ideas are incontrovertibly incorrect?

Bart, that was discussed with you pages ago by Russ, but you insist upon bringing up these ridiculous scenarios, for what reason I cannot fathom. It is this nonsense that I am addressing. Are you willing to admit your scenarios are nonsense and go back to the topic of this thread?

 

[Moonbear]

I think that the trouble has been that I started in this thread talking to Russ, and you weren't paying attention when I laid out my points in response to his, so now I'd been explaining when I should have been re-iterating. When I did simply restate my ideas (post # 97), you immediately understood my point, raised an item of valid contention, which has led to here (countefeiting).

Actually, I had been following the thread from the beginning, and it just took that long for you to make your point clear. Russ' points, and everyone else's for that matter, have been clear to me from the start. The poor analogy of mugger/muggee/robber/theft to have anything to do with commerce took quite some time to disentangle. Now you're just being stubborn about it and I really don't know why.

 

[Bartholomew]

The worth of currency is determined by what you can buy with it. There is no absolute standard for the worth of currency. If the "victim" store can buy $500 worth of goods with $500 of counterfeit bills, then the counterfeit bills are worth $500; that's the definition of monetary worth.

 

[Bartholomew]

Evo, indistinguishable means it can't ever be noticed. Like the counterfeiter had an actual government mint in his basement or something.

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

 

[Moonbear]

The worth of currency is determined by what you can buy with it. There is no absolute standard for the worth of currency. If the "victim" store can buy $500 worth of goods with $500 of counterfeit bills, then the counterfeit bills are worth $500; that's the definition of monetary worth.

See here for a beginning lesson on currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote#History_of_Paper_Money

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

We've been discussing this ad nauseum already. I already gave a direct answer, and suggested taking a careful look at the wording of the Bill of Rights. Do you think we already forgot what we discussed a few pages back to just bring up the same argument again without adding anything new to it? None of your examples have refuted the argument made by others, which is not in agreement with your statement above. I'm getting tired of repeating the same things as this is clearly going nowhere.

 

[Bartholomew]

I find that insulting and uncalled for.

 

[Bartholomew]

I don't know what "argument made by others" you are referring to; I doubt any argument previously made in this thread bears any relevance to the real value of money, determined by what it can be exchanged for.

 

[Evo]

Evo, indistinguishable means it can't ever be noticed. Like the counterfeiter had an actual government mint in his basement or something.

But that means pretending and we're not going there.

Okay, here is my gameplan: the idea that the only purpose of government is to protect the 3 basic rights of life, liberty, and property is inconsistent with certain accepted and clearly necessary laws. Therefore government has more purpose than to protect basic rights; and eventually, once past this barrier, my argument is that government exists to ensure the well-being of its citizens, which may sometimes take precedence over their rights.

I have to get up in the morning because I have a job.

We need to get back to definitions of inalienable rights and privileges. Property would not fall under inalienable rights.

I am trusting you to stay on topic, I know you can do it.

Moonbear is correct, we've gone over this before.

I will decide the fate of this thread tomorrow. There may be nothing of value left to discuss.

 

[Bartholomew]

And I should note that my argument about counterfeiting is in direct response to your argument that property is not determined by its value; you've hit the ball my way, I've hit it back, and now what are you doing?

 

[Bartholomew]

Evo, if you don't know how to deal with hypothetical constructs in an argument, this is not my problem. Saying "what if this" and then asking "does this set of rules break" is an excellent way to test a set of rules. It's the same thing as in physics: if you make up a situation and your mathematics gives a non-physical result, then there is something wrong with your mathematics.

 

[Evo]

This is going nowhere

edit: Bart, we can discuss tomorrow. I think I see what your point is that you want to discuss. Everyone needs a time out. I will be re-opening this in the morning and hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion.

I know I can't think straight tonight.

 

[Evo]

Ok, let's restart. I think Bart's analogies may have confused the point he was trying to make. Sorry Bart, let's start over.

 

[Astronuc]

The most important function of government

is to keep its citizens confused. ( from http://forums.roadfly.org/forums/politics-lounge/6319441-1.html at Road Forums ).

I thought a little comic relief was necessary.

 

[thomasxc]

Absolutely nothing.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it. Period.

Well, i suppose except for your life in the first place.

is it my duty to pay for a drug addicts' hospital bill? absoutley not. without work, there is no value.

 

[WarPhalange]

What if it's a baby that became an addict by being born to an addicted mother?

 

[thomasxc]

i would no doubt feel sorry for it-i am not a stoic. but its not my duty, my responsibility to take care of anyone but myself. but you pose a good point..

 

[thomasxc]

but i would say that some people are more deserving of help than others.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is 3 years old...

 

[BobG]

This thread is 3 years old...

... and you don't feel necrophiles are deserving of help?

For the record,
68% of necrophiles are motivated by the desire for an unrejecting and unresisting partner.
21% long for a reunion with long lost companions.
15% are sexually attracted to the dead.
15% are trying to overcome feelings of isolation.
12% desire a remedy for low self-esteem by exerting power over the dead.

Note: Some necrophiles are motivated by more than one thing, resulting in a total greater than 100%.

The ethics are debatable. Some would argue that all rights cease once a person dies, just as a person has no rights until they're born. Others consider it a serious insult to the dead. Necrophilia is illegal in 19 states, ranging from being a minor dismeanor to being a felony.

 

[thomasxc]

well, if necrophiles means what i think it means, iguess..out of all the possible examples, whyd you pick that one?

 

[lisab]

well, if necrophiles means what i think it means, iguess..out of all the possible examples, whyd you pick that one?

It does mean what you think it means.

I believe he picked it because this is a dead thread (it died 3 years ago ).

 

[thomasxc]

ah. well, it looks to me like it just came back to life...