CapeXit? Separatists bid to split South Africa

Status
Not open for further replies.
lexity said:
e-resident, iirc..... there's a difference
Click to expand...
ha !!
my application was politely declined - i'm not worthy.

there is a question that expands:
"do you work for, or have a relationship with anybody woking in govt" ?
"if so, please provide further info". (or words to that affect in both questions).

my answers:
yes

1) i worked for us dept of state for 4 terms (3yrs x 4).
2) i have 2 friends who have both served as high court judges (kzn) one of whom was appointed judge president.
3) one acquaintance who served as judge at the constitutional court.
4) one neighbor, currently a member of parliament.

and that was it - the end.
a somewhat short sighted & myopic process resulting in an outcome not entirely unpredictable.
 
Grant said:
ha !!
my application was politely declined - i'm not worthy.

there is a question that expands:
"do you work for, or have a relationship with anybody woking in govt" ?
"if so, please provide further info". (or words to that affect in both questions).

my answers:
yes

1) i worked for us dept of state for 4 terms (3yrs x 4).
2) i have 2 friends who have both served as high court judges (kzn) one of whom was appointed judge president.
3) one acquaintance who served as judge at the constitutional court.
4) one neighbor, currently a member of parliament.

and that was it - the end.
a somewhat short sighted & myopic process resulting in an outcome not entirely unpredictable.
Click to expand...
Did you look into the moral code of the group, before applying for membership?
 
Grant said:
oddly, i also know someone rather high up the ladder - we played waterpolo together as kids.
i'm a peasant in cape town, he is now ce / ceo of aspen pharma


**unlike your, my guy did not dedicate his entire life to have others relinquish their responsibilities
Click to expand...
You mean he relies on his own judgement of people, instead of a State decree as to competence?
 
lexity said:
You mean he relies on his own judgement of people, instead of a State decree as to competence?
Click to expand...
no, i mean i do dot know "anyone who has dedicated his life to having others relinquish individual responsibility for adult decision making bla bla bla
 
lexity said:
Did you look into the moral code of the group, before applying for membership?
Click to expand...
no, why would i ?
i assumed i was applying for membership of a giant candyland - one replete with chocolate fountains, along with flying unicorns that fart rainbows.

in true classical libertarian fashion there is a website, one laden with rules, laws and philosophies, but quite devoid of useful information - hot air, and lots more of it - - like winds over the sahara.
 
Grant said:
no, why would i ?
i assumed i was applying for membership of a giant candyland - one replete with chocolate fountains, along with flying unicorns that fart rainbows.

in true classical libertarian fashion there is a website, one laden with rules, laws and philosophies, but quite devoid of useful information - hot air, and lots more of it - - like winds over the sahara.
Click to expand...
Geez, you don't sound bitter at all...... /s
 
lexity said:
Yes.

But that's somewhat to be expected, right?

At least it's been the story of humanity up till now.

Who is popular for insisting on equality before the law?
Click to expand...
You still haven’t articulated who is adjudicating your system and who is enforcing it? And what happens if someone just refuses to comply?
 
quovadis said:
You still haven’t articulated who is adjudicating your system and who is enforcing it? And what happens if someone just refuses to comply?
Click to expand...
You have to set the scene a bit before I can answer that question.

Otherwise it's too much of an armchair question. One that lacks context.

So, in the lead up to Person X breaking the law, for instance, can you tell me:

1) Did he agree the contract whose terms he is now breaking?​
​
2) What is the illegal act he committed, specifically ?​
​
3) Did the counter-party agree to risk not securing counter-party collateral?​
​
4) What was the stipulated penalty for the illegal act?​
​
5) Did he pass his assessment and satisfy the insurance companies that he would be able to mitigate any damage done through breach of contract?​
​
Let's flesh out an example, here, because there is no Ancap/Voluntaryist nation in the world at this stage.​
 
Last edited:
lexity said:
You have to set the scene a bit before I can answer that question.

Otherwise it's too much of an armchair question. One that lacks context.

So, in the lead up to Person X breaking the law, for instance, can you tell me:

1) Did he agree the contract whose terms he is now breaking?​
​
2) What is the illegal act he committed, specifically ?​
​
3) Did the counter-party agree to risk not securing counter-party collateral?​
​
4) What was the stipulated penalty for the illegal act?​
​
5) Did he pass his assessment and satisfy the insurance companies that he would be able to mitigate any damage done through breach of contract?​
​
Let's flesh out an example, here, because there is no Ancap/Voluntaryist nation in the world at this stage.​
Click to expand...
I set the scene with 2 previous days of back and forth where you then you malfunctioned and aborted. Not just me either. Here you are again firing questions and no answers.

Just answer the question.
 
quovadis said:
I set the scene with 2 previous days of back and forth where you then you malfunctioned and aborted. Not just me either. Here you are again firing questions and no answers.

Just answer the question.
Click to expand...
Oh so you want there to be no context for your question.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
 
lexity said:
Yes.

But that's somewhat to be expected, right?

At least it's been the story of humanity up till now.

Who is popular for insisting on equality before the law?
Click to expand...

The law can never be that pure, every individual will have a personal concept and small influence. Why you like to define meanings, people have their own interpretations of reality and events.
Perhaps that's why you don't have an example, it's not a practical thing.

Can we at least have a semblance of that, a kind of central focus point per law we then all follow?
Hardly; the technicalities of any and every law are forever under scrutiny and challenge by various individuals. It changes regularly, sometimes slightly, sometimes in large ways.

Is our system of democracy then good enough?
Of course not; it's at the least often abused.

Doesn't mean we give up getting somewhere of worth. It means we (those attracted to and willing) work hard at getting more positive influence, control and checks & balances into governance.
Even if we can't due to widely sliding morals, we still try.
And if a small village at the edge of Gaul can show us otherwise, we sit up and take notice of that too.


That's my contribution for the day. Anything else would be a bonus. Thank you all for your time
 
Brian_G said:
The law can never be that pure, every individual will have a personal concept and small influence. Why you like to define meanings, people have their own interpretations of reality and events.
Perhaps that's why you don't have an example, it's not a practical thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, in a sense we don't see the full, undiluted, 'pure' results the formula gets when you apply it to the real world to that degree.

But we do see the pure results of the extent to which the formula is being applied i.e. not very well. The results you see are due to the degree with which you are applying the formula.

We already know what works. But certain individuals distract the others and tempt them out of applying the formula. Essentially through victim mentality.

Would you agree that a formula is theory?

And the application is 'practical'?

I'm using your terminology
 
@Brian_G

I don't know if you drink tea with hot milk. But if the formula for heating up the milk safely is "so much heat and time, and no more", then just because you put the milk jug on the stove and turn it on doesn't mean that you can walk away and not come back for the next 8 hours.

You heated up the milk but you only applied the formula to a limited extent, or incorrectly.

When you get back from work and your house is burnt down, you turn to your neighbors and say I knew it.... where does heating milk up on the stove safely exist practically? There is no example of it working safely, in the real world.

Right at that moment your neighbors are going to be reminded just how dangerous lazy thinking can be, and who exactly is detached from the real world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X