On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:48:46AM -0300, Juan wrote: > 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'
Ack. > > > 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 Problem is, we're not starting from a blank slate. We have aggressors, carrying guns, extorting money, as our starting point. What's being asked for (and no, I have no easy answers either), is how do we transition whilst minimizing interim aggression. And no, neither your nor nobody is obliged to answer that question. There's merely a hope that we might find a sane pathway out of this mess we are collectively in. Good luck,
