Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (761958)	1/7/2014 3:11:03 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573922

History has been clear we need laws Talk about wandering arguments... The argument is not, and has never been, or even had any connection to "do we need laws?" Not one poster here (at least not in this conversation, or in any other recent one) has stated, implied, or even suggested that laws are unnecessary. The idea that much of the compliance with the simplest, most important laws with the least compliance costs and most obvious need is voluntary, isn't connected at all to idea that laws are unnecessary, and does not imply the particular law is not necessary. And falsely (or even correctly if that was the case but it isn't) asserting that someone else thinks law is unnecessary doesn't show that application of force equals cooperation, or that you or other liberals are more in to cooperation that other people you debate with. Again and again, you start off with one idea, respond to disagreement of it with an irrelevant point, respond to disagreement with that point with something that's not relevant to either the 1st or 2nd point, and then usually you then just end with either a comment about how liberals and conservatives are different and will never agree, or you then go on the attack. (This case is a little different in that your initial point was an attack.) None of which shows that any of your points are wrong (to assert such would be to make an ad-hominem argument) but you rarely back any of them up with relevant arguments, instead you gradually shift the argument you respond to further and further from the initial point, and further away from anything the other guy is actually posting. The issue was how liberals where supposedly so in to cooperation and making up their own mind, and that concern about incentives was barbaric, and then in trying to defend it you wind up with "we need laws", as if you where arguing against anarchy rather then for your initial points. Sure arguing against anarchy makes a lot more sense, and is easier to do, than to try to defend your initial points, but its also attacking a strawman while providing no support for your own assertions.

To: koan who wrote (761958)	1/7/2014 9:11:59 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1573922

75% of Illegals Fail Written Driving Test in Nevada: New Law Offers Legal Driving “Privilege” maggiesnotebook.com

To: koan who wrote (761958)	1/7/2014 12:49:09 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573922

>> Look at how we lived until we had democracy and laws voted on by the common man. You think laws like the ACA were "voted on by the common man?" You think the "common man" has anything at all to do with it? If you believe that you're more naive than even I thought you were.