I'd like to see you set out a consistent and closed system of private ownership based on moral rules only.

That sounds like a lot of work. Rather, the conviction that I ought not to take another's things is enough to refrain me from doing so. The law, on the other hand, is inconsistent. It forbids stealing for some but allows it for itself.

If Rawls' theory of justice is correct in concluding that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged" then this maximin principle may entail that taxation is just.

Although I suspect you agree more with Nozick.

Yes, the acquisitions and transfers need to be just in order for the distribution to be just. Taxation is not a just acquisition or transfer.

So dictates the law. Reason dictates otherwise.

Neither side offers freedom. It’s a tug of war between two competing elements of Republicanism, who act as praetorian guards to the system of control they compete over. There are other directions and lines upon which one can travel politically. That’s all I was saying.

I’m not sure why people find affiliation with others based on vague notions of ideology and where they put themselves on a linear spectrum. There is exactly one ideology per human being, none alike, and the political spectrum ought to resemble a galaxy rather than a straight line. It would be silly to clutch to such an image of politics.

When the Left abandoned its defense of freedom it turned Right, conservative, and reactionary. Now you can’t slide a piece of paper between the two sides. It’s all about seeking and maintaining the power and prestige of their political institutions rather than lessening their grip on other human beings.

Abandon both wings, make of the absurd political spectrum a triangle, put right and left at the bottom, and add your own at the pinnacle. Now you have a direction.

So long as they are just in their transfers there is no reason to prevent someone from becoming wealthy. To do so would be to engage in the unjust transfer of wealth, for instance through theft, exploitation, and forced labor like taxation.

Looks like signs of delusion to me.

It should be easy for you to explain why I’m on it. You told me you saw a pattern.

Sure, I’d love to see your argument.

I have wasted enough time responding to, by your own admission, your thoughtless words. The cure cannot lie in more words. The only cure would be for you to begin to THINK. Clearly and honestly, as a matter of integrity. Drop the rhetorical defense of Trump and with it the defense of all the nonsense this leads you to say.

But perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this.

This whole time you haven’t once revealed how words are more than their form. And your rhetoric is powerless. You try to tell me what to do but it has the exact opposite effect. A waste indeed.



I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing.

Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.

Neither do you but you keep referring to "us".

You didn't ask.

In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.

Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.

In that case the "us" will be you and me. Still, no chord being struck here.

You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.

Once again, you didn't ask.

Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?

You haven't referred to the real world. You brought up "us", clearly referring to yourself and your own imagination. Let me know when the real world enters the picture.



Your magical thinking regarding words shows your disregard for them. You have to imagine they have a special powers in order for them to matter. “If words have no power,” you say, “then they have no power and do not matter”. It’s your own base and superstitious non-sequitur.

It makes no sense to treat words as if they are independent of thought and an equivocation to pretend that what is at issue with words is the form they take.

You seem to believe words are more than their form, but are still unable to show me that they are. Where is this other stuff? Point to it, take a picture of it, describe it—anything.

You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?

The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to, proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings.

First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?

Which humans? You and me? Is this the “us” you’re speaking of? No chord is being struck over here.

Your attempt to separate words from their meaning and consequence is the result of your irresponsible defense of Trump's irresponsible claims. Your inept defense of his right to free speech is based on your treating words as if they do not matter. Any rational discussion of free speech and censorship needs to address this.

I never said words do not matter. I think Trump’s words do matter, and that is why I am defending his right to say them, and from any attempt to suppress them. I was arguing words have no power, which means they do not do the things you claim they do.

I don't know if this is a reflection of your failure to understand or an attempt to dissemble. I am not confirming what you have been arguing, I am pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding. The arbitrariness of the form and sound of words does not mean that the meaning of words is arbitrary. It does not mean that words do not have power or do not matter.

I am pointing out your fundamental straw man. I never said meaning is arbitrary. I didn’t say that since the form and sound is arbitrary, the meaning must be. This is where your goalposts started to widen, as I’ve already shown.

First, because it is our democracy that Trump endangers.

Second, there are various forms of democracy. You have no trouble with:

No it isn’t. It’s your version of it he threatens, the one where every 4 years you spend an hour or two waiting in line to exercise your supposed rule, but end up delegating it to someone else. It’s the one where you are not allowed to contest the results of an election, where censorship is warranted, and where sorcery is regnant.

I do reject the notion of the common good, which is another selfish desire portrayed as something everyone wants and needs, where the ends always justify the means, including violating people’s rights so you can have it. No shortage of dictators used the rhetoric of the common good to justify totalitarianism.

I forgot to mention Plato's Cratylus. The question of linguistic arbitrariness is not something new and not something I was not aware of.

I pegged you as more of a Gorgias kind of guy.

It also merits consideration that "us" strikes primal chords, in homo sapiens who aren't psychopathic to some degree. Any thoughts on that?

If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to, I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda.

This merits its own consideration:

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result.

This whole exchange has been about your attempt to separate words and meaning. I called you out on this from the beginning of this exchange. From my first two posts on this:

Your round-about way of defending censorship pushed you into maintaining a position you have been unable to defend.

More on this last point below.

You then go on to defend yourself by misunderstanding and misusing the concept of linguistic arbitrariness. But we should expect no less from someone who claims to think without words.

You clearly didn’t know what the concept was until I mentioned it. I was using the concept earlier in the exchange and it fell on deaf ears until I gave you something to google. See this quote:

“Words are independent of thought. It’s the reason we can’t understand a language simply by reading it or hearing someone speak it. Scratches on paper, text on screen, and articulated guttural sounds are arbitrary, merely conventional. It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form.”

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859380

Later, after giving you the word “arbitrariness” to google, you confirm what I was arguing all along.

“You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not.”

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859550

In 2017 Democrat in Congress begged Biden not to certify the election based on conspiracy theories. It’s called politics, and I don’t recall anyone raising any stink about it then.

https://cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html

In any case, so illegal was the Pence move that they had to change the law after Trump tried it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/congress-approves-new-election-certification-rules-in-response-to-jan-6



The Trump-hater has proven himself incapable of fairness and balance. Justice evades him. It’s all about power and conformity, and moving to control how others think. Unfortunately his power wanes. His double-speak doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does.

If they are devoid of meaning and significance I'm not going to do for you what you have failed to do for yourself. If your words are devoid of meaning and significance there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

If you can read you should be fine. If you want me to clarify, don’t be afraid to ask.

You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not. If you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary it does not say that the meaning is arbitrary, that it means whatever you want it to mean.

One minute we’re talking about words, next we’re talking about meaning. The goal posts continue to expand. I say the word is arbitrary, you tell me the meaning isn’t, tell me to look at the dictionary, and I guess I’m supposed to feel refuted thereby. So where are these words you think in?

You are deeply confused. When I think of those words I am thinking in terms of those words. I am thinking about what democracy and freedom mean and how a demagogue like Trump and his followers threaten our democracy. I am thinking about how there has been a disturbing shift to autocracy in many countries and how if Trump is elected or attempts to overturn the election again the US will become an autocracy as well. And I am thinking of how Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic.

When you think of those words you are thinking in terms of those words…you can’t get any more circular than that.

Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. Never will you mention the forces at work trying to keep people off the ballot, or that state and federal governments are trying to railroad their greatest political opponents, or the routine censorship of dissenting voices. Maybe it’s you rendering the term meaningless. “Our democracy” has become pure doublespeak in the mouths of those who continually utter it, anyways, so no glittering generality you pretend is at threat will work here.

This reminds me, a while back I asked you if you support democracy. You never answered. Is it that you think it is a meaningless sound or are you just unwilling to admit that your loyalty to Trump trumps democratic rule?

I support the rule of the people. I don’t support your version of democracy, which is no doubt conflated with electioneering, vote-grubbing, and representative government. How many times have you ruled? Your version of rule of the people is centered on how many time the earth rotates around the sun, for purely astrological reasons. You exercise your rule one day every few years for no other reason than it’s time to vote. This is oligarchy and serfdom and I do not support it.

Do you think death threats should be legal?

I think everything should be legal.

Are your words just scratches and sounds without meaning or significance? Can you replace them indiscriminately with any other words? Or, just strings of sounds and scratches? Does your defense of Trump amount to more than grunts? Is there more to what you say than there is to a dog barking?

They are. And you have to supply them with meaning and significance. They have neither. In linguistics it is called “arbitrariness”.

But I did. I gave you three: freedom, democracy, and autocracy. But you refuse to explain how you think about them and other words without words.

You gave me three words in text. Point to me any of the words that you’re thinking in. A picture would suffice. Any thing to which the word “word” signifies.

Then what is it you "think in" when thinking about them without them?

I don’t think in anything. I just think.

Me too. Very subtle movements, perhaps tiny, inaudible but articulated expressions.

This shows that there is more to words than just scratches and sounds. Your thinking that this is what words are is a damning indication of just how empty and meaningless your inept but endless defense of Trump and his use of "the best words" is.

Then you should be able to show me this “more to words”, or point to any word in your lexicon of thoughts. But you won’t. It goes to show how you rely on your imagination too much.

Please explain how you think about concepts such as freedom, democracy, and autocracy without words.

I think about things, like words or concepts, but that does not entail that I think in things like words and concepts.

At least they won’t be lonely.

It sounds like you’re in a higher state of evolution. Or lower, depending on how you look at it.

So you hear your own voice. Interesting. Perhaps my malady is the reason I can refuse to overestimate the power of words. It explains a lot, really.

Metaphor is an overrated crutch. Used too often it comes to replace the truth.

No need to apologize.

Is there a little narration going on up there? What does it sound like?

This is writing, not talking. I’m writing to you. Such a simple mistake that it’s no wonder your grasp on this and other topics is lacking.

Does the voice in your head tell you what to write?

There are no voices in my head, no. Do you?

Words are independent of thought. It’s the reason we can’t understand a language simply by reading it or hearing someone speak it. Scratches on paper, text on screen, and articulated guttural sounds are arbitrary, merely conventional. It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

I’d love for you to show me where these words are.

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. History shows that the censor is immoral and irresponsible in moving to censor speech he doesn’t like. It’s the same story over and over again. His speech will lead to some species of public disorder, like the corruption of the youth, the loss of faith in the one true god, witchcraft, hatred, threats, violence, racism—I promise. Therefor commit violence and persecution against the speaker.



And that’s on them, not Trump. Took you long enough to get there.

I don’t think in words. The metaphor is absurd to me. Do you think in words? Well, where are they?



You’re right. But there are people willing to act on all of the above, to abide by someone else’s dictates, up until and including throwing someone in jail because he made certain sounds with his mouth. That’s how censorship works.

No, it reveals that you like sales. What you don’t mention is all the sales and all the ads that do not influence you. But that you pick and choose maybe one or two out of the excessive din of the advertising world, and do not run for a products after every billboard you see, reveals that it isn’t as influential as you make it out to be. It’s the same reason you pick and choose articles and quotes, post them at your whim and fancy, while dismissing countless others. And through these countless efforts you cannot point to one person you’ve influenced.



I speak and write in words.

Yes conmen believe in the power of words. Are you a conman, or so easily conned, that you’ll believe the same? When you hear their words are you compelled into some sort of action favoring their expectations? If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse?

I suppose that reveals more about you than the power of the words.

Are you the type that buys a product when you see an ad for it?

Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? Why do you object to the gag order if words do not have power? Why insist on his right to say whatever he wants if his words do not have power?

The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of.

Words have power because I like defending Trump. Words have power because I object. Words have power because I insist. There is a gap of hot air between the premise and the conclusions. I don’t believe in sorcery so I don’t believe I’m changing the world with my words. The fact of the matter is I use words because I like using words and I like sharing my opinions. I like reading the opinions of others and I like responding to them. Unlike you, I’m not trying to change anything. Again, I don’t believe in sorcery.

Are my words affecting you now? Am I tickling your brain at a distance? I just put the words there. That’s the end of my influence. That’s the extent of my sorcery, the extent to which I’ve changed the world with words. But it’s your eyes running over the text. It’s your faculties making sense of the symbols and providing them with meaning. You are using my words. They are not doing anything to you; you’re doing things to them, and you’re influencing yourself in the process. That’s the way it has always worked, with Trump’s words, the judge’s words, your words, whomever’s words. Not a single one of them has caused or influenced a goddamn thing.

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship.

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats.

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism.

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist.

they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?

No and for the same reason you wouldn't act on his words. Words don't have the power you pretend they do.

If they do act it is because they perceive an injustice, not words.

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent. He neither speaks of violence nor advocates for it, something that his critics would never mention because it undermines their whole case.



And sexist, apparently.