JM

[Dale Eastman]

A link to a main stream news article started this discussion.
This is the head line.

USPS services suspended in Santa Monica neighborhood after repeat attacks on carriers

I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.

➽ I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.

Isn't that what the Klaus Klown at WEF are trying to do?

never heard of them. Also I know and don't care to make the populations of all the counties flat. I just want to deal with the population extremities. Cap it at 1-2 million people per county then have super sparse counties get resolved by the counties around them.

<scrolls up, reads group name, scrolls back down>

Identified Thinkers.

How do you propose to cap the populations without violating the free will of all those humans?

Please make sure you tag me in your replies
dale.eastman.75 preceded by the "@" symbol with no spaces.

I think you can use punative measures like cutting funding if the county continues to keep accepting more residents after passing the threshold. To mu understanding that's pretty compelling.

➽ I think you can use punative measures

Do punitive measures violate free will?

so does the market forcing everyone to live in a closet.

Dale Eastman now that ive read that correctly. Not necessarily. You can impune someone for infringing upon your rights, autonomy, agency, property, etc.

I appreciate that you discern the difference... But I'm calling you on your attempt to distract from the context.

You stated:
I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.

I asked:
How do you propose to cap the populations without violating the free will of all those humans?

You responded:
I think you can use punative measures...

What I understand is that you are implying that initiating measures to violate free will to force people to not live somewhere they want to live is not really violating free will.

Did I correctly understand what you just conveyed?

Dale Eastman yeah I probably should have reread the thread, but I think limiting free will helps maximize free will, which is why eliminating negative freedoms is important, like e.g.: freedom to murder.

I appreciate your thinking as it leaks out in your words. Context is easy to lose with Fecalbook being set up for the written version of sound bites.

It took me awhile to process the difference between freedom and liberty. A friend made a wonderful comment that covers it. Liberty has rules; freedom does not. Set that aside for the moment.

Full disclosure, I'm slightly fucking with you. I have a website. I'm refurbishing it so I have four new pages that might clue you in as to what I'm challenging you on.

Perhaps you are not fully aware of how you are trying to direct this discussion. Perhaps you are not fully aware of your bias.

Your position that I am aiming at is you supporting the use of force to do harm to other humans that have done no harm to you, nor to anybody else.

What's next after you can't live here? Get on the train for a free ride to Auschwitz?

Once you and I come to terms on what you are suggesting, (in my opinion a bias you are not aware of) I'd be happy to discuss the issue of, to use your words, "freedom to murder", why such a freedom does not exist, and what to do if somebody attempts to violate another human's right to life.

Kudos for being good in how you are responding to my challenges to your posts. I'm almost annoyed about the fact that how you are responding is so rare that I am compelled to give acknowledgement and thanks when it happens.

This is not something that you would want to jail/kill anyone over. Basically I don't think we should have small towns be so sparce that they end up having to do without certain government supports, for things like schools, and various public services, and on the other side we should probably prevent people from moving themselves into what is essentially squalor or living in closets like in China. Can't help but see both groups of people getting hurt by this in one way or another. Don't have to completely flatten the populations of each county. Just trim the population extremities a bit. I would only ever enforce this population cap by withholding tax federal and/or state tax money that would go towards the county and have them tax their own citizens to pay for their needs. That's all I would ever do.

I didn't get tagged by you. I almost missed that you had replied. I will read and reply to your post in the morning after some sleep.

alright

[Dale Eastman]

Understand that you are in a discussion with a pedantic asshole. I am assuming that you can look up the word pedantic yourself. And I'm sure you know how aggravating dealing with an asshole can be.

Hi, I'm that pedantic asshole.

Words convey concepts. Words have meanings... Sometime multiple meanings... If the meanings are not agreed to, concepts can not be conveyed.

Wickedpedia: In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.

I find myself often challenging ambiguous comments when the person making the comment is not aware of the ambiguity in their comment or the double assumption they make, assuming others make the same assumptions they make.

➽ Basically I don't think we should...

Who, specifically, is this "we"?
You and I are not this we. You, I, and some 320 to 340 million Americans are not we.
I will note that you are stating an opinion. I reject your opinion because it presumes to tell me what I must do.

➽ Basically I don't think we should have small towns be so sparce that they end up having to do without certain government supports...

OBJECTION! Government is not defined.

You and I are not likely to assume the same meaning for government. My definition causes cognitive dissonance and pisses people off. I get ghosted in discussions because I ask questions and challenge assumptions in claims others make.

➽ on the other side we should probably prevent people from

Just exactly how are you, I, and some others going to prevent people from whatever?

➽ Can't help but see both groups of people getting hurt by this in one way or another.

The moment free will is denied, harm is being done. This is what I challenged you about to begin with.

➽ I would only ever enforce this population cap by withholding tax federal and/or state tax money that would go towards the county and have them tax their own citizens to pay for their needs. That's all I would ever do.

And here is the crux of the conflict.

As a pedantic asshole have to directly ask you, Are you for liberty or are you for slavery?