China hungry. Antarctica stuffed.

Speaking of land how's this ....

"Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson has taken the blame for not telling the United States in advance that the Port of Darwin which is used by US military forces would be sold to a Chinese company with alleged links to the Chinese military.

The admission came at a Senate inquiry where it was confirmed that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered a review of federal foreign investment laws in the wake of the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Chinese company Landbridge."

"The deal was not formally reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board because states and territories can sell land to foreign investors without the need for Foreign Investment Review Board approval under certain conditions."

"Ms Anne Tan, the acting Northern Territory Coordinator-General, who worked on the Port of Darwin project, said: "We were quite comfortable that the links between Landbridge and the Chinese government were acceptable to us."

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/de...rwin-port-lease-20151215-glnosj#ixzz3zp1g7AiT
 
mmm....shiney! said:
As it appears you have reading comprehension difficulties, I'll spell it out for you:

There is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership.

That doesn't mean the British are vindicated for their actions, it doesn't mean I like chocolate eclairs, it doesn't mean I'm a member of the KKK, it doesn't mean I know who will win this years Melbourne Cup or any other fantasy you may have circling in your mind at the time that you care to credit me with - it simply means there is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership. Now that's not so hard to understand is it?

Now I'd kindly ask you to stop attributing untruths to my statements.
Click to expand...
I think that he thinks that you think that if a society doesn't have property rights then it isn't entitled to be free from aggression...
 
This could have all been cleared up within a heartbeat if he had taken what I said at face value, instead of interpreting it the way he did.

Did it really come across as meaning that though? I thought my intention was obvious. :/
 
mmm....shiney! said:
This could have all been cleared up within a heartbeat if he had taken what I said at face value, instead of interpreting it the way he did.

Did it really come across as meaning that though? I thought my intention was obvious. :/
Click to expand...
I think that because you unusually ambiguous when writing "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property" he decided to take it and run as a kind of "gotcha" moment.

I assume that you meant in any system based on collectivism, freedom from aggression and respecting property rights is impossible as those rights are incompatible with collectivism. I.e, if I have 2 fish, you have 0, in a collectivist society, it wouldn't matter why we'd ended up like that, I'd be expected to, or forced, give one fish to you.
 
col0016 said:
mmm....shiney! said:
This could have all been cleared up within a heartbeat if he had taken what I said at face value, instead of interpreting it the way he did.

Did it really come across as meaning that though? I thought my intention was obvious. :/
Click to expand...
I think that because you unusually ambiguous when writing "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property" he decided to take it and run as a kind of "gotcha" moment.

I assume that you meant in any system based on collectivism, freedom from aggression and respecting property rights is impossible as those rights are incompatible with collectivism. I.e, if I have 2 fish, you have 0, in a collectivist society, it wouldn't matter why we'd ended up like that, I'd be expected to, or forced, give one fish to you.
Click to expand...

But his very next sentence is: "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme."

So it is clear that he is morally justifying aggression from those who don't adhere to the collectivist system because by imposing property rights would improve the lot of those people suffering under collectivism by allowing them to achieve their full potential.


mmm....shiney! said:
In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed, any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property. It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme.
Click to expand...
 
6008_meanwhile_in_antarctica.jpg
 
@col, any communal system of property rights overrides any individual claim to liberty. There is nothing ambiguous about that at all. If "the group" claims precedence to a resource, then it denies any individual's claim. It's not really difficult to understand, for some.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
@ Big A.D., I know you are busy and stuff but you don't want to respond to my post?
Click to expand...

Busy trying to build a new business (hopefully without stuffing the environment or infringing on anyone's property rights).

Depending on the intensity of my hangover, I will respond to your tosh tomorrow.

Love you xx
 
To understand the mindset of those attracted to Libertarianism, a large study was conducted:

The Largest Study Ever of Libertarian Psychology

...we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals. The paper was just published last week in PLoS ONE. The findings largely confirm what libertarians have long said about themselves, but they also shed light on why some people and not others end up finding libertarian ideas appealing. Here are three of the major findings:

1) On moral values: Libertarians match liberals in placing a relatively low value on the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity (e.g., they're not so concerned about sexual issues and flag burning), but they join conservatives in scoring lower than liberals on the care and fairness foundations (where fairness is mostly equality, not proportionality; e.g., they don't want a welfare state and heavy handed measures to enforce equality). This is why libertarians can't be placed on the spectrum from left to right: they have a unique pattern that is in no sense just somewhere in the middle. They really do put liberty above all other values.

2) On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most "masculine" style, liberals the most "feminine." We used Simon Baron-Cohen's measures of "empathizing" (on which women tend to score higher) and "systemizing", which refers to "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.

3) On relationships: Libertarians are the most individualistic; they report the weakest ties to other people. They score lowest of the three groups on many traits related to sociability, including extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They have a morality that matches their sociability one that emphasizes independence, rather than altruism or patriotism.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO1VsY2cYN0[/youtube]

http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/
Click to expand...
 
@ Big A.D., I'll be offline for a week or so as of tomorrow, going on a golf trip so take your time. I don't know what "tosh" means but I'm sure it's not positive. ;) :lol::P:lol:

I'm not sure if I love you unless it's your wife posting again, but if it is she understands what I'm saying.
 
@SP, I couldn't be bothered reading your post, but I'm sure that it's from someone who has an intricate knowledge of libertarianism.

:lol:

Edit to add: because I sure as hell know you don't!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
mmm....shiney! said:
@SP, I couldn't be bothered reading your post, but I'm sure that it's from someone who has an intricate knowledge of libertarianism.

:lol:

Edit to add: because I sure as hell know you don't!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Well of course you couldn't because you are again scared that some facts will prove too challenging.
 
Simply reading Shiney's posts is an interesting study in the psychology of "internet Libertarians". :lol:
 
There is more to the internet than idiotic immature memes and emoticons ... If one does not know the meaning of a word the internet has a search engine called google ... there are many online dictionaries to choose from ...

tosh
noun
rubbish; nonsense.
 
systematic said:
There is more to the internet than idiotic immature memes and emoticons ... If one does not know the meaning of a word the internet has a search engine called google ... there are many online dictionaries to choose from ...

tosh
noun
rubbish; nonsense.
Click to expand...

If one does not know the meaning of a word one usually applies semantic knowledge. Semantics is the method we use to apply pre-existing knowledge to that which is unknown. It's not difficult, it comes naturally...........for most. :lol: :lol:

When we read we apply 3 strategies to comprehend, we use grapho-phonic, syntactic and semantic cues. Well, that's what intelligent people do. Dumb fcks just assume. And then post endless inane comments.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
systematic said:
There is more to the internet than idiotic immature memes and emoticons ... If one does not know the meaning of a word the internet has a search engine called google ... there are many online dictionaries to choose from ...

tosh
noun
rubbish; nonsense.
Click to expand...

If one does not know the meaning of a word one usually applies semantic knowledge. Semantics is the method we use to apply pre-existing knowledge to that which is unknown. It's not difficult, it comes naturally...........for most. :lol: :lol:

When we read we apply 3 strategies to comprehend, we use grapho-phonic, syntactic and semantic cues. Well, that's what intelligent people do. Dumb fcks just assume. And then post endless inane comments.
Click to expand...
Actually, most people would just look up the word rather than come up with convoluted justifications and spew profanities.

A toddler, on the other, may throw a little hissy fit.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
systematic said:
There is more to the internet than idiotic immature memes and emoticons ... If one does not know the meaning of a word the internet has a search engine called google ... there are many online dictionaries to choose from ...

tosh
noun
rubbish; nonsense.
Click to expand...

If one does not know the meaning of a word one usually applies semantic knowledge. Semantics is the method we use to apply pre-existing knowledge to that which is unknown. It's not difficult, it comes naturally...........for most. :lol: :lol:

When we read we apply 3 strategies to comprehend, we use grapho-phonic, syntactic and semantic cues. Well, that's what intelligent people do. Dumb fcks just assume. And then post endless inane comments.
Click to expand...

If one doesnt know the meaning of a word just look it up instead of clogging the forum with tosh ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top