Favorite War Room poster

[Rex Kwon Do]

No as I am not a democratic socialist (or any other kind) by any normal definition. But I am also not the one having trouble making some really easy political distinctions (i.e. Between my views, social democracy and nazism), all while lecturing others about political definitions (not saying u r btw).

Oh ok, fair enough.

 

[Islam Imamate]

My top 10 would be:

1. Fedor
2. Werdum
3. Cain
4. Nog
5. JDS
6. Barnett
7. CroCop
8. DC
9. Overeem
10. Arlovski

Based on a combination of peak and longevity, with a little more emphasis on peak. I don't see any criteria that gets Mir over any of those guys. That doesn't mean he sucks or that I'm comparing him to some guy whose name I barely know or whatever. He's had a good career, but so have other people.

I like it. I'd probably put Nog over Cain because he was a top 5 HW for so long but I'm admittedly biased when it comes to Big Nog.

DC is a good addition that might get overlooked by others because he didn't fight as a high profile HW for long but I think its a justifiable position. He beat Bigfoot, Barnett, Mir, and Nelson and was the Strikeforce champ. It just all happened within a relatively short time frame before he dropped down to LHW that I think people tend to forget how impressive that is.

I honestly think that if DC can beat Jones he would cement himself as one of the GOAT.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I honestly think that if DC can beat Jones he would cement himself as one of the GOAT.

Stepping outside of HW's, I view GOAT as who would most likely win an open weight tournament (so someone like GSP doesn't rank for me). Right now I have it like this. A win over Jones would be huge for DC and nobody would really care the weight class.

1. Fedor
2. Jones
3. Werdum
4. ???

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

@IDL cause he gets the game and always has something interesting to say.

I also like @KnightTemplar, @squeezewax, There are some others who I can't remember cause I don't remember their names/how to spell it correctly I just like some of their infrequent but far out posts.

 

[dontsnitch]

@IDL cause he gets the game and always has something interesting to say.

I also like @KnightTemplar, @squeezewax, There are some others who I can't remember cause I don't remember their names/how to spell it correctly I just like some of their infrequent but far out posts.

This reminds me of a soldier who got held up in the barracks while there was an epic battle being waged, and when everyone was already dead, they came out firing their pistol in the air.

Not a knock on you, it just strikes me as funny giving how this thread went down, for someone to calmly come in and give an opinion after the bloody mess that just took place.

 

[Thurisaz]

Libertarians should stop confusing the enforcement of property rights through coercion as freedom.

Nice strawman, bro. Did you find it somewhere on the 'net or did you come up with it yourself?

True communism aka anarchism is freedom, it just is an impossibility or would be accompanied by abject poverty as well.

Anarchism is hardly freedom. It's simply freeing the meanest fuckers do what they please at the expense of everyone else and their rights. That means minimizing individual freedom instead of maximizing it.

 

[Greoric]

LOL JVS must have really done a number on you if you think this weak trolling is some kind of chemo.

Also since you can't even address the premise of my posts I am certainly not going to entertain your rediculous Glenn Beckian trip into Godwin land where everyone is a libertarian (read propertarian) or a Nazis.

How dare you claim you were trying to make an argument. You're just crying about what every other collectivist parasite cries about; getting more free shit from the productive sectors of society.

 

[TeTe]

GermanBJJ

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

JVS & GREORIC is the greatest rivalry known to man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like it. I'd probably put Nog over Cain because he was a top 5 HW for so long but I'm admittedly biased when it comes to Big Nog.

That's a fair position. I have Cain higher in part based on my own qualitative assessment, but that's certainly something that reasonable people can disagree about.

Stepping outside of HW's, I view GOAT as who would most likely win an open weight tournament (so someone like GSP doesn't rank for me). Right now I have it like this. A win over Jones would be huge for DC and nobody would really care the weight class.

1. Fedor
2. Jones
3. Werdum
4. ???

I would take Jones over Fedor in an open-weight fight.

JVS & GREORIC is the greatest rivalry known to man.

It's not really much of a rivalry. He's just spewing standard right-wing libertarian (propertarian) propaganda. Not bringing anything new to the table. He doesn't even have a good enough grasp of it to regurgitate properly. His over-the-top personal nastiness, crazy CTs, and pretending to be a doctor are pretty funny, though.

 

[kpt018]

You mean the problem where collectivists fail to distinguish aggressive force and defensive force, and attempt to conflate both as forms of coercion?

Just want to get it straight because your "arguments" are questions and don't do a whole lot to hash out your views. Is your argument that force is ok if you're a property owner? Why would that be ok?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Just want to get it straight because your "arguments" are questions and don't do a whole lot to hash out your views. Is your argument that force is ok if you're a property owner? Why would that be ok?

It's an exercise in very obvious question begging. If the IRS collects taxes that you owe, that is "aggressive force"; if a landlord collects rent that you owe, that is "defensive force." Why? Because right-wing libertarians don't recognize the IRS's claim as legitimate but do recognize the landlord's claim as legitimate. Why? Because they oppose "aggressive force" but support "defensive force." If you tell them that that is circular reasoning, they respond with some variation of "I hate you."

The ideology has its roots in industrialist lobbying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education) so there's no intellectual depth to it, but some people have a strong emotional connection to the powerful (we call them "authoritarians" generally, but they try to turn that meaning on its head).

 

[Gandhi]

I'd throw money on sexual harassment being somewhere near universal. Just sayin'.

Agree, but what's your solution, da market ?

 

[Gandhi]

How dare you claim you were trying to make an argument. You're just crying about what every other collectivist parasite cries about; getting more free shit from the productive sectors of society.

It's funny but still sad seeing u unravel into another vanilla angry libertariatard like this. I mean this post is incoherent. if you really believe i want free shit from society, you can PM Lee who also lives in Florida and knows where I am at in life. Talking out of your ass here.

 

[Gandhi]

GermanBJJ

Agree 100%

 

[Gandhi]

JVS & GREORIC is the greatest rivalry known to man.

One poster has gone from at least sounding intellectual to foaming at the mouth lunatic ranting about cancer and nazis so I think it's clear who got the W here.

 

[Gandhi]

It's an exercise in very obvious question begging. If the IRS collects taxes that you owe, that is "aggressive force"; if a landlord collects rent that you owe, that is "defensive force." Why? Because right-wing libertarians don't recognize the IRS's claim as legitimate but do recognize the landlord's claim as legitimate. Why? Because they oppose "aggressive force" but support "defensive force." If you tell them that that is circular reasoning, they respond with some variation of "I hate you."

The ideology has its roots in industrialist lobbying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education) so there's no intellectual depth to it, but some people have a strong emotional connection to the powerful (we call them "authoritarians" generally, but they try to turn that meaning on its head).

I think there are a couple of valid differences. The LL and the tenant come into a voluntary agreement and ask the state to enforce that agreement. I don't volunteer to pay taxes. While it is true I could move, there is still no contract or agreement.

The taxes can go up or down and are decided by majority rule. Sort of like living a commune whereby the other tenants could lower their rent by increasing yours on an almost arbitrary basis.

My issue is that equating one with freedom and the other model with tyranny is worse than an oversimplification. Especially if u stretch the building example to be a self sufficient building that was providing everything for itself. You could see those with economic power taking advantage and in response to that a system would be developed to ensure that those at the bottom did not say fuck it and raise hell.

The higher ups might pay more for common upkeep, share the pool with all (rather than pay for use), maybe even some free rent for the worst off.

 

[Gandhi]

Nice strawman, bro. Did you find it somewhere on the 'net or did you come up with it yourself?


Anarchism is hardly freedom. It's simply freeing the meanest fuckers do what they please at the expense of everyone else and their rights. That means minimizing individual freedom instead of maximizing it.

No strawman simply stating that full on property rights =\= freedom. Did U not imply that? Speaking of great posters, EEG came up with the term. He was a true anarchist, speaking of anarchist and the net, you should look up the term. What u r referring to sounds more like the end result of anarcho capatlism aka full on right wing libertarianism. True anarchism is something else, although it is not achievable in my view (as I already stated).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think there are a couple of valid differences. The LL and the tenant come into a voluntary agreement and ask the state to enforce that agreement. I don't volunteer to pay taxes. While it is true I could move, there is still no contract or agreement.

The taxes can go up or down and are decided by majority rule. Sort of like living a commune whereby the other tenants could lower their rent by increasing yours on an almost arbitrary basis.

This is a better argument than you usually see. My point was that the key issue of legitimacy of the claim is glided over rather than addressed by the offensive/defensive force distinction, while you're directly confronting the key issue.

You sort of anticipate what I'd say. The tax agreement isn't as explicit (though employment agreements mention that the employer is entitled to deduct taxes, sales tax is explicit before you pay, etc.). There's a continuum of consent. You earlier talked about workplace sexual harassment, which is coercive--not as coercive as outright physical domination, but more coercive than a relationship between two people who are equal in power. Likewise, the rental agreement is somewhat coercive (you don't want to pay the money, but you need a place to live; you don't have to live in that particular place, but you have to live somewhere), but you could argue that taxes are more coercive (the same points apply--taxes are way cheaper, though, and it's easier to not pay taxes than not pay for the place you live; but it's also easier to find another ll than another country to live in). Ed: BTW, this is why I think equality and freedom are tied together rather than opposing. The more equality you have, the less coercion there is in day to day life.

So there's still no *logical* argument for the distinction providing a justification for rent but not for taxes (either one is rejected or they are both accepted). But one can make different kinds of arguments that allow one but not the other. That is, if someone says that the NAP with that exception logically allows for rent but not taxes, they are simply wrong. If someone says that a desire to minimize coercive force leads them to be OK with rent but not with taxes, it might be possible for them to make an argument that holds up (which you begin to do in that post).

My issue is that equating one with freedom and the other model with tyranny is worse than an oversimplification. Especially if u stretch the building example to be a self sufficient building that was providing everything for itself. You could see those with economic power taking advantage and in response to that a system would be developed to ensure that those at the bottom did not say fuck it and raise hell.

The higher ups might pay more for common upkeep, share the pool with all (rather than pay for use), maybe even some free rent for the worst off.

Yeah, I like this.

 

[Livermore]

My issue is that equating one with freedom and the other model with tyranny is worse than an oversimplification.

Quoted for truth.

For me, this is the biggest turnoff with right libertarianism. It's a shame because they have (IMO) some good ideas but they turn so many people away by failing to realize that everything IRL isn't black and white.