So I have bid my farewell of the EUOT.

[Pat]

Well, we are all entitled to an attention-whoring-thread now and then, are we not?


The thread was called Healthcare. It was started by Johan, who shared his positive experience(s) of Swedish health care. Here's the link for those interested who are not banned from EUOT: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446578

I will try to give some context for those who are banned, and can not read for themselves. Libertarians think the state should stay out of healthcare. One of these is Stonewall, a libertarian who is also a moderator. I enter the thread at page 13 with the following post:

/quote]/QUOTE=Strategist;10466900]:rofl:

And how many people do you imagine would repair computers for fun? Or fix annoying bugs in their released computer game as soon as possible if it wasnt to get paid for it? Or for that matter, how many people would volunteer to bake breads all day if not to get paid for it? Etc, etc, etc?

People volunteer only after they have been selfish enough to ensure their own well-being, and even then most do only a limited amount, while being selfish enough to choose more comfort over more volunteering for the rest of their amount.

People choosing their self interest is what makes people work to do that with which they will benefit society most, as decided by society as a whole through the laws of supply and demand.


The idea that the world would be better without selfishness is utopian. A world without selfishness cannot exist as long as the human species in its current form exists.[/QUOTE]



"People are selfish and motivated by self-interest" says the libertarian and builds his society on this presumtion. "Selfishness is virtuous" he says to himself as he walks down the street.

Suddenly, a stranger approaches him. He is wearing dirty clothes and is as thin as a skeleton. "Please, good sir, I am hungry, can you give me some food?"

The libertarian, as a good rational utility maximizer, ponders the situation but can not see how that would work to his self-interest. He had bought two sandwiches earlier in the day but due to a terrible misallocation of resources found that one was enough. He now held the one remaining in his hand. He had, however, decided he would try to sell it to a co-worker at his place of work, perhaps at a somewhat reduced price, to try to recoup at least some of the money spent.

The next day he walk down the same street, careful not to step into any big holes (this was a road not owned by anyone, built before libertarian supremacy, so it was not maintained; the Libertarian had concluded he would save money by using it and anyway he did not much mind the stench of the poor people). Suddenly he finds something lying in his way, so that he must step over it. It seemed to be the dead body of the beggar from the day before.

Despite his rationality, a vague sense of guilt found its way into his mind. He tried to rationalize it away, but he still felt in a way responsbile for the death of that man. "If I had not taken the free road, as a good utility maximizer, I would not have had that encounter; I am still a better Libertarian than the people using the normal road, who misallocate their resources by needlessly spending their money." It did not quite work.

But then he thought to himself: "People choosing their self interest is what makes people work to do that with which they will benefit society most, as decided by society as a whole through the laws of supply and demand." And then he continued this line of thought to it's conclusion: "And since that man did not have money, according the laws of supply and demand, which is society's way of regulating these things, there existed no demand for my sandwich." He suddently felt better about himself. The Libertarian was glad to live in a free society.

The following day he again found himself walking down a street (this time however, he had paid to use the other one; while lying awake trying to sleep he had concluded that time was money and using a road where he needn't step over holes and dead people meant he could walk faster and perhaps that wasn't such an irrational allocation of resources after all).

Making his way down the well-maintained road, another stranger approaches him. He was wearing good clothes, much like our Libertarian himself, who felt a certain kinship with this person who he perceived to be a fellow utility maximizer. "Could you please tell me the way to the train station?" the stranger asked.

"Certainly" our Libertarian replied, and pointed in the wrong way, towards the Post office. "It is that way. And on your way there, about half-way, you will be passing a Post office. Could you please post this envelope for me?"

"Certainly" the stranger replied and they both go on their ways. The libertarian is happy to have maximised his self-interest by saving himself the time it would have taken him to go to the post office.

The next day he walks down the same street and his eyes are attracted by something lying on the sidewalk. "Is the road not cleaned?" he asks himself. He had, after all, paid to use it. He looks closer and sees that it is his envelope, lying on the ground, close to where he met the stranger. The stamps had been removed.

"That bastard!" the libertarian exclaims. "He must have taken the stamps for himself." The libertarian is overwhelmed by a sense of moral indignation, for while it was rational for the stranger to take the stamps, it violated his right to property, stemming from his right to life. And those the only rights acknowledged by libertarians (of course they are negative rights and not positive rights so the beggar's right to life only extended to that no one could take it from him by force, just as the beggar did not have a right to take a sandwich by force).

Distraught by this betrayal of the principles of libertarian society, he sits down on the curb and shakes his head. "I guess my view of human nature was correct after all. People are selfish."

The end.



Now, this is only a fairy tale, a product of my imagination. There is no place quite like this on earth, not even in the "land of the free", and you may very well say that you are a rational utility maximizer who does not believe in such things as fairy tales. Now, I know not all libertarians can say such a thing. I happend to know that at least some libertarians do believe in fairy tales and believe people should do good because the fairy tales say that they will be rewarded after death if they do, and will be punished after death if they do bad, meaning that it is rational to do good, as long as you accept that fairy tale as being true. In theory, I assume it is possible to imagine a society like that where people are good to each other as long as everyone believes in the fairy tales. But libertarians of this variety should think twice before rejecting my fairy tale; another person can reject your fairy tale with the same ease.

How libertarians who do not believe in these fairy tales expect good to be done, I don't know. I have never heard a good explanation, so I have come to the conclusion that they probably don't care about good being done to others and only care about themselves.[/quote]



Later, I am warned for this (on account of religion being banned as a subject):



/quote]On a priori rights.

If we are to assume there is such a thing as a priori rights, and these do not come from the sky fairy, we must seek their source in human nature and human DNA as shaped by human evolution. For a rational person, this is the only possible source of these rights.

Let us then assume a typical band of hunter-gatherers, before the invention of government.

Presumably, these hunter-gatherers have a primitive understanding of possession. If someone from another tribe comes to steal their things, they will defend them. But their possession is not individually linked. If Gorm is starving, Throg does not say "this meat is mine, I will not share it". Because then the other tribesmembers would quite right to kick Throg out of their tribe for being a selfish bastard.

So, if you say there is an a priori right to property, I can just as well say there is an a priori right to expect others to share.

---

And this is why I don't like libertarianism. They construct an entire intellecual edifice on phony premises. It is akin to religion.[/quote]




The last part I posted in a separate post instead of editing the main post; it is obvious from context it is the same argument taking place over two posts. There was also another post of mine arguing against a priori rights directly before the "main" post. Formally, I was warned for the second post.

On page 27, I bow out of the thread. Anyone able to view the thread will be able to see that there was no serious libertarian opposition remaining.



/QUOTE=PatMaster;10484819]Well, I've been waiting a few hours for an answer from Abdul, but it's 04:40 in Sweden, so I will go to bed. I don't much think I will return here in the morning.

When I entered this thread it was a 13-page libertarian cacophony, as are the nature of these threads on this forum. I am happy to see I have been able to contribute to changing the climate of the debate, even if at the cost of a warning that will never expire.

I was the one who had everything to gain from an ordered and civilized debate. But I soon found my arguments to be banned. I do not question the decision to warn me, despite the possible conflict of interest (a concept I assume to be familiar) and despite the fact that I found the warning in my inbox at 19:04, at a heated point in the conversation, for a post I had made a page back. I know Paradox is not in the business of free inquiry. I know that, because I was here when they said "if you don't like the rules, you can leave". So I left.

Well, I returned. And I'm reminded why I left: I just don't like things standing in my way. So I'll leave again. And I hope I've demonstrated through action that not all people who like the welfare state like authoritarianism.

But I hope the libertarians on this forum will remember this thread when I'm gone. And perhaps keep in mind that they have a competitive advantage here. An intervention in the free market.

Bye.

(Oh, and if anyone wants me to answer something, they can PM me, and we can continue the argument somewhere else. I will not be accused for intellectual cowardice and running from an argument. Unless I get banned for this post, I'll get an e-mail notification, I believe.)[/QUOTE]



I soon received an e-mail notification I had received a PM. I had received a warning in PM, which was also written out in the thread.



/QUOTE=Stonewall;10484912]/color=orange]I log in from my vacation to check my PM notifications and this is what I find?  Who banned you from making your arguments?  I can see no record of anyone doing any such thing and my brief research into the matter leads me to conclude that no such ban was ever given to you.

What I do see is that in the past few pages you alluded, multiple times, to a warning you received for telling religious people that their beliefs were akin to sky fairies and that religious people's beliefs were built on phony premises. 

You were warned for that conduct because it constitutes trolling, which violates form rules, just as someone would have been warned for trolling if they had told you that you were a heathen atheist and you were going to hell to suffer from eternal damnation because of your unGodly ways.  Truth is not a defense to a warning for trolling.

Now, all of a sudden, almost 2 days having passed since the warning and you having made more than a dozen posts, many of which were in a discussion with me, who had warned you, you have just now decided that you will bow out by claiming that your arguments have been stifled by the moderators and accusing us, in particular me, of prohibiting you from engaging in the discussion? 

Sorry, friend, I won't permit that kind of deliberate dishonesty to perpetuate itself here.  I am doing this publicly because you have called me out publicly and I won't allow you to spread lies without setting the record straight. 

Please accept this piece of professional advice from an attorney to someone who aspires to be one.  Your credibility is sacrosanct.  When you say something, people need to be able to believe that you are telling the truth, regardless as to whether they agree with that truth or whether it is a truth they want to hear.  Your conduct here has been incredibly disappointing because you threw your credibility away perpetuating a lie designed to justify your decision to stop participating in the discussion by claiming that you have been a victim of moderator oppression. 

If you wanted to stop, you could have just stopped, or made a post that you have gotten tired of the discussion because its just repeating itself or any number of other things to let people know that you haven't conceded the argument, but that you are no longer participating.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

This is an internet forum.  Posting is supposed to be fun or enjoyable on some level.  If its no fun, there isn't much point in posting.  Nobody would have thought any less of you (or anyone else for that matter) for quitting a discussion.  Everyone quits at some point.  I hadn't planned on getting re-involved in this thread when I get back to my house on Saturday evening. 

Back to the issue at hand, if you have a problem with a moderator's acts, send a PM to an admin and they will investigate.  As for the rest, you will be receiving an other warning via PM in a few moments warning you for publicly arguing with or commenting on a moderator's decision, namely your lies regarding my warning to you.

You are free to leave if you so choose.  You are also welcome to stay and continue participating in whatever discussion you choose to participate in.  What you are not welcome to do is violate forum rules and then question, comment on or deliberately spread lies about the resultant warnings.  As a member since 2001, you know this as well as anyone.

EDIT: Just so that there is no confusion, there is nothing in this post that should be seen by you as asking for or otherwise permitting a public response from you.  Such a response, no matter how brief, minor or innocuous will result in your further being warned for publicly commenting on or arguing a moderator decision.  Any response from you should come via PM to myself or an administrator if you feel that my prior warning or this one that you about to receive are wrong or otherwise in error. [/color][/QUOTE]



Since I could not reply in the thread, I replied in PM to Stonewall.



/quote=Private message from me to Stonewall]I have no complaints as to your decision to warn me again. Fair enough. I probably deserved it. But since you call me a liar, I would like to explain myself. It was never my intention to troll for reaction; what I said about religion was said in the context of a very heated argument with much reaction and counter-reaction from both sides as it was already, and if my intention was to provoke reaction I would surely be in the business of knocking in open doors. Throughout the thread I made it my business to preserve civility and I several times admitted I had misunderstood or that I was wrong (at least one time to you directly) which is something few people do on the internet. Why would I swallow my pride and admit to be mistaken and wrong so many times if my intention was not to argue in earnest?

I maintain that I was not trolling and that my argumentation against religion was made in earnest. While I was hard in my argumentation, I was hard against ideas, and never against individuals. Since that is not allowed against religion, which is a group of ideas enjoying special status, I am banned to make those arguments, and that is not a lie to say. And banning certain subjects does distort the free market of ideas, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. I do not leave because of your moderation, I leave because of the rules, that I know not to be written by you. I have absolutely no hard feelings against you what-so-ever.

Any suspicions I have as regards to moderation, I would not have had had I been warned by someone else than the very moderator opposing me in heated discussion. That just doesn't feel quite right to me.

You are quite right to say credibility is sacrosanct. I feel the same way. Since you publicly called me a liar, and forbade me from defending myself, I would like to ask of you the favour that you publish this message. It is easy for you to say no, as no one will know you refused me this, but I am honest when I say I consider you a man of honour (and when I said I believed you to be a good person, I meant that too) so I can do nothing else than appeal to your honour and your belief in the sacrosanctity of credibility.

If you believe anything in what I write to be in error, and do not want to publish it for that reason, I will be glad to discuss it with you in private in the hope of working something out we can both agree to.[/quote]



Stonewall will return from his vacation today or tomorrow, depending on time zone. We shall see what he replies.

I know Stonewall comes here as well, sometimes. His last post here is on Dec 2nd, i.e. a few days ago. Lest he again accuse me of lying, in writing to him that my private message to him was private, and no one would know what decision he would make: Well I can say nothing else than this: I changed my mind.



I know this is a very right-wing forum, and there are many libertarians here. But please try to view this objectively.

[ulmont]

tl;dr.

[Darth Wagtaros]

O.M.G!!!!!!!!11111111122222333


That orange text made my eyes bleed and none of this makes much sense.  But I hope you win.

[DisturbedPervert]

Breaking News!  EUOT is full of wankers!

[Pat]

I'll edit and change it from BB-code quotes to "'s

BB-code quotes make the text smaller which also makes it harder to read


Edit: Or I kill the quotes by changing the initial [ to /

You guys are smart enough to understand what it means anyway and it stops the text from becoming smaller

[BuddhaRhubarb]

does this stonewall always write in bright orange?

I couldn't read any post he/she/it made if that's the case. glad I never bothered with that forum, sounds like a horrid place.

[Pat]

does this stonewall always write in bright orange?

I couldn't read any post he/she/it made if that's the case. glad I never bothered with that forum, sounds like a horrid place.

Only when handing out warnings or banning, I believe. The background color on EUOT is dark blue, and here it is light blue, so there is more contrast and the color is easier to read on EUOT.

Fine, I'll kill the color-tag too.

[Berkut]

Thanks for sharing that with us.

[Pat]

Thanks for sharing that with us.

Sarcastic or serious?

[Berkut]

Take a wild guess.

[Pat]

Well, if you're not interested in reading it and forming an opinion, you can just say nothing at all. No one's holding a gun to your head, nor did I ask for your your opinion in particular. I'm sure my post will be of interest to at least someone, while yours had no potential to be anything more than mere waste of bandwidth. So if you're not interested, you can fuck off. Thanks.


edit: And the same goes for anyone else who's not interested. You can fuck off too.

[Syt]

Meh, EUOT was always bad, but it took a further downturn when they even managed to chase someone as relaxed as UglyDuck away.

[Pat]

Oh, and who's willing to bet it will be primarily libertarians who will suddenly be "not interested" in internet drama?

[Berkut]

Well, if you're not interested in reading it and forming an opinion, you can just say nothing at all.

Indeed I can. Alernatively, I can mock you for thinking that your sad, sad tale of EUOT discrimination will be fascinating to us all.

No one's holding a gun to your head, nor did I ask for your your opinion in particular.

Nor did I ask for your permission to give my opinion, nor will anyone be asking for you permission in the future. Welcome to Languish.

I'm sure my post will be of interest to at least someone, while yours had no potential to be anything more than mere waste of bandwidth.

Bandwidth is free, and almost impossible to really waste. There is plenty enough, even for wasting, if in fact that is what people wish to do.

So if you're not interested, you can fuck off. Thanks.

I will keep that in mind. Your welcome.

edit: And the same goes for anyone else who's not interested. You can fuck off too.

I am sure they all will do just that. Thanks again for sharing that compelling tale of injustice.

[Pat]

I direct you to my post directly above yours.