Karl

Which is to say it wasn't created at all. Nothing is nothing, something is something. Are we back in the Dao/PI thread ?

Its the words you are using. The Earth is part of a finite universe, of which there is no inner, outer, or even a specific entity called space. I don't take issue with the rest of what you wrote, I just picked up on the infinity/space and thought of buzz light year which made me laugh.

We gave up all rights centuries ago, we got stuck with the crap you kicked out, but then you appeared to miss the crap so much that you decided to re-adopt it.

Outer space and infinity LOL You need to stop getting your science from Pixar ;-)

Yes, fair for everyone. Funnily enough though, I'm not able to claim a penny, or even reduce my council tax despite being unemployed. I've paid in for solidly for 37 years without claiming a penny except for some minor surgery to an eyelid, a lung investigation and a broken arm that needed setting. Yet, I can get no benefits. Seems expensive to me. I've had more back from a car theft claim. A handgun is more of what I had in mind, I'm not wanting to shoot game or skeets. So, owning one of those is pretty much out of the question.

...From man to pig and pig to man but could not tell the difference... Some are more equal than others.

Your syllogism still isn't working :-) You could try defining PI in terms of Pie. That might be made to work as pies are often roughly circular.

I imagine it's out of context. In a libertarian society everybody would provide for themselves and their families. Those that were unfit/ incapable would need charity. Ironically, socialists believe that taking charity is somewhat beneath them, but taking money by force is fine. There would be no Government safety net in a pure Laissez Faire society, which always brings out the virtue signalling liberals. The fact is, a society without government intervention would be far removed from how things are today. No doubt, if you told a hardline Russian communist that the state would no longer supply shoes they would be unable to understand the mechanism of the free market doing so. As it is, those in the West had many more, better fitting, better quality and cheaper pairs of shoes than a communist block citizen could ever comprehend.

Exactly. People were surprised that Ayn Rand used Medicare, but she frequently told people they should take from the state whatever they were due-as it happens she didn't choose Medicare, by then she was too ill to decide and had given the power of attorney to her personal solicitor- who she did pay very well. I want to learn to shoot at some point, but it's a right mess on in the UK. If I ever get the time I might go to East Europe where you can learn to fire anything from a small pistol to a 20mm canon.

I very much doubt Ron said that in context. It should be clear that anti-socialists would not rather see people dying on the streets, but presently that's precisely what we are witnessing because of socialism. We even had 1500 plus old people dying unnecessarily in just one NHS hospital. The final report suggested that there were many thousands of neglected old people suffering and dying unnecessarily. Some were forced to drink the water from flower vases in order to survive. Wherever socialism is, the death rate soars, just look at Venezuela, but, you say you aren't a socialist.

In the UK and USA they are being drugged. I thought it was a bit strange to give school children guns to carry whilst at school. I really don't have much to say in the subject of firearm carry. I suspect that it might deter terrorists and nutters from laying waste to people as if they were fish in a barrel.

You can have as much responsibility as you want and as many social connections as you need, that's what freedom of choice is all about.

What's that got to do with socialism, or my dislike of it ? I made no reference to carrying sidearms as being formulative in that discussion. I can't see the sense in a school full of children lugging around fire arms, but I do see the sense in teachers being trained and armed. Better still, let's stop torturing children and drugging them to compliance at Government institutions.

I haven't got a heart, hadn't you heard ? ;-) I didn't visit Texas when I was last in the USA. I'm told the steak is good.

It only has power because you gave it away. That's socialism, you give up your rights to the Government for security and fairness. Then, when it becomes obvious that it isn't working out you scream for stronger Government. More of what ails you cannot make you better in my book. The powerful and wealthy love big government, it makes them more powerful and wealthier. They love regulation and tax laws and monetary/fiscal policies. They love it when the man in the street says he wants better Government, more regulation, more welfare, more security. They literally cream their Jocky shorts at the bozos who continually make it possible for them to retain the status quo. They have all the guns, education system, media, law, intellectuals, economists, judges-they have everything and each time the people call for more, that boot on their necks presses just a little tighter. The only way is to give up consent, stop asking for more, oppose everything that promises more and support everything that warns of less. Anytime they tell you it will be less comfortable, secure, financially destructive, you can know right away you are heading straight.

You would have to define Dao first, and well, as you know, no one can define to undefinable Dao, so, like schrodinger so cat, it it both is and isn't at the same time. Can we do Schrodingers pi

I'm staying on this topic, that slice of socialist PI is raising my blood pressure too high.

Why would I bomb Florida ? Also, as a side note, I would take every penny and service you are due from the state without the slightest equivocation.

i Man must 'choose' survival and life as a value. He is not automatically granted it. Laissez Faire needs no regulation, all that is required is for there to be law and justice. Criminal activity hasn't been stamped out because of regulation, on the contrary, it has exploded. There will always be bad actors, if you give them regulation, then there will be regulated bad actors. In other words, bad actors become legalised. That's what has happened and why so many are seeking an alternative through the ballot box. That people don't think rationally doesn't mean they can't. Eventually they will have no choice. I hope that I'm pushing up dasies before that day comes. Communism, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, capitalism (as it's currently practised) are all part of the collectivist philosophy. Wether it's Gordon Gecko and his 'greed is good' hedonism for hedonists sake, or intellectual liberals talking of fairness it's all the same bollox. I think you justify it as perhaps a lesser, necessary evil, but in objectivist terms that is just evasion and in many ways that is much worse than pure ignorance as you don't have any excuse. You are equating socialism with the good, because it appears to be doing good, but, like all evils, the devil is in the detail. It is in what is unseen. Even death camp inmates received shelter and food. Socialism doesn't respect life. It's only because you have decided to call it something which makes the underlying philosophy seem milder. You wouldn't act like that had you lived under Russian or Chinese socialism. You would know what it was and what it meant. Socialism is from Marx and Marx got it from Hegel and Kant plus all the others that believed man was incapable of good. Where Kant and Hegel restricted themselves to individuals, Marx took it further into a particularly destructive kind of social collectivism. The result was Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin and all the other tyrants who have caused greater death, misery and destruction than the world has ever known. To admit you support 'a bit of that' a moderately watered down version is to misunderstand how the spark can become a flame.

If it was necessary.

Another straw man. Socialism is anti-life. That it appears to do some kinds of good does not remove that label that it is inherently evil and it, and those who support it are the scourge of rational men everywhere.

I would use the full force of any weaponry at my disposal and avoid casualties amongst the armed forces. That doesn't mean it's always necessary, but I would hesitate if it was.

Straw man. Don't you get tired of doing that ? You don't have capitalism in the USA, you have socialism and fascism. That's what you vote for and that's what you got. I've stated why it won't work and now you create the truism that it doesn't work. Capitalism cannot work on its own as some kind of disembodied thing, it isn't a regime, it's simply voluntary free trade amongst consenting individuals who agree to abide by certain rules and codes of behaviour. It doesn't work by itself in isolation.

You have stated explicitly that you are a socialist with all that implies. You may not agree with my conclusions regarding socialism, but they remain my conclusions and apply to anyone who is a socialist. They either hate life, or are ignorant of the form of anti-life philosophy they support.

Which is why I am not a laissez faire capitalist out of ideology. I wouldn't trade with countries that pose a threat to my life. Those that openl threaten and attempt to attack I would strongly discourage, those who refused to accept and continue to aggress I would turn to glass. Don't mistake me for a libertarian, Neo liberal or Neo Con. Anyone who doesn't pose a threat and wishes to trade would be open to do so without tarrif or borders.