Reddit reviews The Prince

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prince-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/1613821158

Intro post

I have never been gifted!

<3 <3

Sexy Rexy

> If complying with the law results in profit, the company will comply. If it results in loss, the company will not comply

That's the whole point of law. Cause and effect. That is what most people on this planet called preventative. Congratulation for discovering the basic concept of law, though taking a long winded road to it. You are still extremely confused about it though.

> The next time somebody comes to kill you go ahead and hold that law out in front of you and see if it stops a bullet or a knife blade. Then we'll see who is living in reality.

What the fuck are you talking about? Law isn't a physical object you moron. How the fuck are you going to "hold that law" out in the first place? The fact that law is in place deters people from coming to my place and trying that in the first place.

> Well my society isn't lawless, so I find this to be a moot point.

Laws in your society is fucking useless and thus lawless. Law in your society is no different commandments from the Bible.

> Whose repercussions? The governments?

Yes. Governments prevent me from hitting your face.

> I could fly to your house, punch you in the face, leave immediately, and if your lucky an officer might take your statement.

Yea, do that. I have cameras set up that provides enough evidence for the officer to hunt you down. Obviously the threat of being in jail (criminal law) doesn't deter you from hitting people but it deters you from cheating taxes (tax law). You contradict even yourself.

> You've placed me in a situation where I am forced to concede property in order to protect my freedoms or my life.

No shit moron. I'm place in a situation where I am forced to not punch you in order to protect the freedom of my life. This is the whole point of the law. You don't like to concede property, I don't like to not punch your face. But we both have to follow the law due to repercussions.

> I must give money to the government or I lose more money, freedom (prison), or death.

Yes. That is the law and thus it prevents you from trying to not pay tax. See how preventative it is? It works because it has repercussions. This is an example of law preventing you from acting out a behaviour (not paying tax).

> Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from taxation.

LMFAO, every idiotic libertarian always trot out this bullshit like it's on automatic playback. Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from paying rent to your landlord.

> You used a word made up by a comedian with a satirical political show to insult my argument

Yes, that's the point. Your arguments are based upon nothing but GUT INSTINCT. What you lack in knowledge, you made up in confidence. That word, "truthiness", describes you extremely well.

> It's an insult made up by a different person.

It can't be an insult when it is true. Calling a fat overweight person "fat" is not an insult. Likewise with you. You are IGNORANT and you WANT TO and LIKE TO remain IGNORANT.

> These types of law do not prevent anything.

Holy fuck you are dumb. Two sentences ago you admit to having to pay tax. The tax laws prevents you from cheating tax. That's what it prevents. The environmental laws prevent companies from polluting due to financial disincentives. That's what it prevents.

> Tort law is by definition only relevant to disputes. Two parties who settle their differences on their own are completely outside the purview of the law. The case must be brought to court before the law applies.

No you dumb idiot. Tort laws specified a companies or a person can be fined for misconduct. THis is made aware to everyone and thus prevent people and companies in engaging in misconducts.

> You moved the goal posts here.

Wrong. 1+1 is not 5.

I said laws encompasses MANY (M for Mary, A for Asshole, N for nelly, Y for Yellow). MANY, not ALL (A for Asshole, L for Lily, L for Lily) but MANY. See how I have to spell it out for you?

> That's largely irrelevant though, seeing as you missed the point entirely and provided a faulty example of your own point.

Er no dumb ass. I didn't miss my own point. I set the point and you missed it and interpret into something else. You purposely moved the goal post and you blame me for missing my own point. Do you see how fucking stupid you are?

> In your example the law recognizes marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.

Yep, support both set of moralities - people who hates gay, and gay people who want to be recognized as couple.

> What if I believe gays shouldn't have civil unions? What if I believe marriage should be outlawed? What if I believe government recognition of union, marriage or civil, should be banned? Maybe only gays should be allowed to marry.

So fucking what? What you show is only an example of a subset of ethics.

> The law can only support ONE ethical and moral outcome.

Nope. It supports many morality and ethics. It takes some from each group. Do you understand SET Theory? Each morality and ethics contains a set of beliefs. For example, Morality of person A has { BeliefA1, BeliefA2, BeliefA3, ...} Morality of person B has { BeliefB1, BeliefB2, BeliefA3, ...}

The law accommodate some beliefs from each morality. It is an intersection of belief sets. It never has to accommodate ALL beliefs from everybody or one set of the other beliefs.

> You repeatedly ignore my attempts to provide detailed resources that explain how a DRO type system might form in order to enforce law.

NO! ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION IN YOUR OWN WORDS

I'm not going to waste time and read your bullshit if you never bother to pick up a book and read about the core concept of the legal systems and the foundation of human civilizations.

> Once again: The Machinery of Freedom

Yea, read these first: Concept of law, Republic, The Prince, Das Kapital, History of Civilization

Yea read those books first and understand that you are a complete fucking moron, before you even suggest to me to read your filthy masturbatory junk literature.

You've purposely throughout this ENTIRE conversation dropped arguments you cannot addressed. You are ignorant and are intellectually dishonest with me as well as yourself.

• You dropped the point where Google is used instead of the US.
  
  
• You dropped the point where the Mother having the enforcement power to carry out justice.
  
  
• You dropped the point where Murdoch and his massive empire could easily take your land in your shitty society.
  
  
• You dropped the point where your entire family actually want to stay in this country despite your insane lunatic ass.
  
  
• You dropped the point where you have to pay to use roads regardless of your private property.
  
  
• You dropped the point where you in fact never actually own a property, read the fucking property contract and only argued from ignorance.
  
  
• You dropped the point where bitching about signing contracts "under duress" is no different to all renters who are "under duress" when they have to signed contract for rent.
  
  Fuck man, you're like a child with a leaking diaper. You purposely dropped so many fucking points that inconvenient the way you think in your shitty bubble of alternative reality.
  
  > so I'm done arguing this point with you.
  
  Meh, I don't really give a fuck in continuing this conversation with a wilful moron, who is most likely a shittiest of engineer, whose ideology is nothing but a fucking fairy tale for adults.