On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:21 -0500
grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Razer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > [?]
>
> Well, those are the practical everyday questions people
> like Juan refuse to answer and explain the potential
> workings
That is not how it works =) A few points in no particular
order :
a) I am under no obligation to explain anything
b) there are TONS of literature dealing with political
philosophy
c) utilitarianism is a joke
d) at any rate, it's aggressors who should be doing the
explaining. People who support the state's authority should
provide the 'rational' basis for their obey-or-die 'philosophy'
Let's say A point a gun at B and then the following
dialog ensues :
A : I want to buy ice-cream. Give me money or I'll kill you.
B : what the fuck?
A : I need money, so give me your money.
B : are you nuts?
A : No, I want ice-cream. How can I can buy ice-cream if I
don't have money?
B : I don't know. That's not my problem.
A : Look I'm being rational. You have to solve my problems. If
you don't want to be robed and/or raped and/or killed, YOU have
to 'explain'
B : why?
A : and AND, but BUT WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON?
> of to people who might then vote for his nobodys.
> If you want a vote you have to put it in everyday practical terms.
> No offense to the Juans's out there, just saying.
No problem. I just explained why it's a mistake to demand
explanations =P
