The single most important political principle ever

[Natapoc]

My issue with the premise (okay, ONE of my issues) is the purposeful vagueness of "authority", as if "authority" had an absolute value.

Do I have the "authority" to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? No.

Do I have the ABILITY to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? Provided they are weaker than I am, yes.

What we "can" do is very different from the agreed-upon rules of what we are "allowed" to do. Bluth's premise is based, once again, on the groundless idea that each individual has inherent rights which cannot be violated by another individual, and therefore cannot be violated by the collective. These rights do not inherently exist. Each individual possesses the ability to take from another, provided the individual has sufficient strength, or cunning, or means. I have no authority to shoot you dead, but, provided I have a suitable weapon, I have an absolute ability to do so.

Hence, society---self-imposed limits on what we CAN do for the benefit of all. Is this truly such a difficult concept?

This is a very interesting political idea. It can be used to justify anything especially for some definitions of authority:

One definition of authority is "The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command"

By this definition his proof seems to mean that the state does not have authority over the weak but only the strong who can exact obedience by means of physical force.

It seems that by some definitions you DO have the authority to take another persons things.

[Ravea]

Since when did the zero property of multiplication become a "political principle," let alone "the single most important ever?"

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

Math doesn't equal philosophy or politics.

[Grave_n_idle]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

Cute, but wrong.

The single greatest political principle ever is:

x > y

[Northwest Slobovia]

Aha! I just figured out what BC means by this:

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

0 proof * 2 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
0 proof * 299,999,999 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
...

/Thread

[Ryadn]

Aha! I just figured out what BC means by this:

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

0 proof * 2 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
0 proof * 299,999,999 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
...

/Thread

Has ending a reply with /thread ever actually ended a thread?

[Rolling squid]

Sorry, Bluth, political power is additive. If a group of n people gain five more members, their total power is n+5, not n*1*1*1*1*1.

[Berzerkirs]

Um... Why is the mulitplicative property of zero being called "the mots important political principle ever"?

[Maerngau]

My issue with the premise (okay, ONE of my issues) is the purposeful vagueness of "authority", as if "authority" had an absolute value.

Do I have the "authority" to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? No.

Do I have the ABILITY to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? Provided they are weaker than I am, yes.

What we "can" do is very different from the agreed-upon rules of what we are "allowed" to do. Bluth's premise is based, once again, on the groundless idea that each individual has inherent rights which cannot be violated by another individual, and therefore cannot be violated by the collective. These rights do not inherently exist. Each individual possesses the ability to take from another, provided the individual has sufficient strength, or cunning, or means. I have no authority to shoot you dead, but, provided I have a suitable weapon, I have an absolute ability to do so.

Hence, society---self-imposed limits on what we CAN MAY do for the benefit of all. Is this truly such a difficult concept?

[Maerngau]

Pontification dressed up in math.

Now we've seen everything.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Aha! I just figured out what BC means by this:

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

0 proof * 2 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
0 proof * 299,999,999 repetitions of "It's Just True!" = 0 proof
...

/Thread

Has ending a reply with /thread ever actually ended a thread?

Yes.

>.>
<.<

No.




Maybe.

Let's try dividing by zerOHSHI-

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Well I think anarchy is a much better principle than your meaningless numbers.

[Ryadn]

My issue with the premise (okay, ONE of my issues) is the purposeful vagueness of "authority", as if "authority" had an absolute value.

Do I have the "authority" to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? No.

Do I have the ABILITY to take someone else's money, for whatever ends? Provided they are weaker than I am, yes.

What we "can" do is very different from the agreed-upon rules of what we are "allowed" to do. Bluth's premise is based, once again, on the groundless idea that each individual has inherent rights which cannot be violated by another individual, and therefore cannot be violated by the collective. These rights do not inherently exist. Each individual possesses the ability to take from another, provided the individual has sufficient strength, or cunning, or means. I have no authority to shoot you dead, but, provided I have a suitable weapon, I have an absolute ability to do so.

Hence, society---self-imposed limits on what we CAN MAY do for the benefit of all. Is this truly such a difficult concept?

Don't edit my posts. I meant what I wrote---we impose limits on what we are physically able to do, modifying them into rules of what we "may" do.

[Neo Art]

The flaw in this argument (OK, ok, there are LOTS of flaws in this argument, but let's stick with the most glaring) is that "authority" is not a quantifiable figure that can be counted, shared, and given out like so many grains of rice.

"authority" as a legal, practical, and philosophical concept is not a quantifiable aspect. We are not born with so many "authority units" which we may delegate as we please. Nor is it like some fanciful anime conceptualization that can be registered with a fancy piece of eyewear, and measured in somber tones, such as: "his authority levels are over 9,000!"

Or, in simpler terms, thread fails.

[Hayteria]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

As in, if something is the product of two factors, no amount of one factor can make up for the total abscence of the other?

[Gauthier]

And don't forget the other mathematical revelation BC would like us all to remember:

A = A

That is all.

[FreeAgency]

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

I realize I have not as yet posted sufficiently to earn any real respect on these forums, however if you’ll indulge me for a moment:

This statement achieves the very rare accomplishment of being both correct and false simultaneously.

It is correct in the observance that authority does not exist in any objective way, and that a state cannot objectively be said to possess authority.

However, to make this statement is to miss the point.

Authority is not now, and has never been, supposed to be derived from the individual.

Historically authority has usually been said to be derived from either supernatural forces (religion) or lineage (usually both), and only held in trust by certain individuals.

Even in modern times authority is not typically regarded as being issued forth from the individual, but by a construct generated by individuals. That is to say: society. Authority resides in society, and is wholy the domain of society.

The relationship is top-down. Accordingly government has authority because it operates with the blessing of society, and not because it commands the combine authority of its populace.

Were the latter to be the case, the government would also possess – for example – the combine religious authority of any and all clergy within the nation, or the intellectual authority of all the assorted professors and scientists within the nation.

Clearly this is not the case.

[Grave_n_idle]

The flaw in this argument (OK, ok, there are LOTS of flaws in this argument, but let's stick with the most glaring) is that "authority" is not a quantifiable figure that can be counted, shared, and given out like so many grains of rice.

"authority" as a legal, practical, and philosophical concept is not a quantifiable aspect. We are not born with so many "authority units" which we may delegate as we please. Nor is it like some fanciful anime conceptualization that can be registered with a fancy piece of eyewear, and measured in somber tones, such as: "his authority levels are over 9,000!"

Or, in simpler terms, thread fails.

Or, as I said - x > y (if someone really needs a mathematical rationalisation). Whoever has been granted the power has more power to exercise it, than whoever has not been granted that power.

In our system, we grant that power through a fairly democratic mechanism, whereby, again: x > y is the governing principle (in theory).

All this multiplication-by-zero bullshit is... well, bullshit.

[Drachmar]

Thread = Epic Fail

[/thread]

[Buffett and Colbert]

What? Unless I've been failing math all this time...

[Farnhamia]

What? Unless I've been failing math all this time...

You've just been assimilated bythe Collective, Buffy. It's okay, don't worry, so has almost everyone else, except John Galt and the other "men of the mind" like him.

[Jimanistan]

No Noble Truth can be found in mathematics. Numbers are only good for engineering, computers, and card counting.

[Tekania]

Ok, so let's handle this logically...

1. 0 represents the ammount of authority of an invidual
2. 0 * x = 0 represents the authority of a group of people defined by "x"
3. Since the groups authority does not exceed the individuals authority, it is always 0
4. But the individuals authority is 0

Therefore:
1. The individuals authority is always 0 as is the groups
2. No individual possesses authority, and therefore there is no authority under this system to do anything.
3. Since there is no authority to do anything, this includes any authority over property, money, etc.

So Objectivism = 0... which I've always known ZERO

I win...

/thread

[Desperate Measures]

Because there are numbers in this thread, it means I do not understand. What the hell is going on here?

[Drachmar]

No Noble Truth can be found in mathematics. Numbers are only good for engineering, computers, and card counting.

And making nuclear bombs.

[Natapoc]

Ok, so let's handle this logically...

1. 0 represents the ammount of authority of an invidual
2. 0 * x = 0 represents the authority of a group of people defined by "x"
3. Since the groups authority does not exceed the individuals authority, it is always 0
4. But the individuals authority is 0

Therefore:
1. The individuals authority is always 0 as is the groups
2. No individual possesses authority, and therefore there is no authority under this system to do anything.
3. Since there is no authority to do anything, this includes any authority over property, money, etc.

So Objectivism = 0... which I've always known ZERO

I win...

/thread

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.